Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on Tuesday, 31st July, for the Summer Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.

Mr. EMMOTT: I beg leave to present petitions, 57 in number, relating to the Electricity Supply Bill, which has come down to this House from another place. The petitioners are all authorised undertakers, some owning, others not owning selected stations, and together they are responsible for the generation of a considerable proportion of the electricity generated in this country. Their prayer is that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of the House in order that they may be heard by counsel and witnesses.

NEW WRITS.

Mr. SPEAKER: informed the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, Warrants for New Writs, namely:—
For Borough of Lambeth (North Division) in the room of Frank Briant, esquire, deceased.
For County of Wilts (Swindon Division) in the room of Sir Reginald Mitchell Banks, knight, K.C. (Judge of the County Court of Hull).

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. CHORLTON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now see his way to grant some form of bounty to assist the export cotton trade, in view of the long period of depression and unemployment it has suffered from?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. RUNCIMAN): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on the 20th February, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. CHORLTON: If I ask my right hon. Friend again on 20th February, will he give me the same reply?

Mr. CHORLTON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in order to accelerate the use of Indian cotton, he will arrange for some form of rebate on cost or transport charges contingent on an increased volume of manufactured goods being taken by India?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the House is aware, the question of increasing the consumption of Indian cotton in this country has for some time been under the consideration of the Lancashire Indian Cotton Committee. I am glad to say that the imports of raw cotton from India in the first nine months of this year
have been three times as great as the imports in the corresponding period of 1932. I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on the 20th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter).

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Mr. STOREY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the steps he proposes to take to help British 'shipping to meet foreign subsidised competition; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation for this purpose?

Mr. LOGAN: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to give the House on the present position of the shipping industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Since the statement I made in the House on the 3rd July, the shipowners have been working out a scheme to meet the Government conditions for the grant of a subsidy to vessels carrying tramp cargoes under tramp conditions. A scheme was submitted to the Government on 28th September and is now under discussion with the shipowners' representatives. Legislation will be necessary to bring a subsidy scheme into operation. Communications on the lines indicated in my statement have been sent to the Dominions and India and to certain foreign countries. I understand from the Chamber of Shipping that steps are being taken to convene an international conference of shipowners to frame proposals tending to adjust the supply of tonnage in the world to the demand.

Mr. STOREY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that legislation will be introduced in this matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope it will be at an early date.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Cabinet have discussed the advisability of nationalising the shipping industry?

FOREIGN IMPORTS (CURRENCY DEVALUATION).

Mr. LYONS: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he now proposes to initiate legislation to deal with
imports from foreign countries where there has been currency devaluation against this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no reason to think that the home market cannot be adequately protected under existing powers.

Mr. LYONS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider making representation to the Import Duties Advisory Committee that they should give priority treatment to those industries that are suffering from obvious unfair foreign competition by the devaluation of currency abroad?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that that point will be taken into account by the Committee as and when it arises.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Can my right hon. Friend say if the Government have come to any decision regarding their monetary policy?

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider securing additional powers so that adequate protection can be afforded?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I do not think that it is necessary to add to the powers, which are very full.

FOREIGN TYPEWRITERS (IMPORTS).

Mr. LYONS: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and value of foreign typewriters imported into this country for the four months ended 30th September, 1932, 1933, and 1934, respectively?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the four months ended 30th September, 1932, the imports into the United Kingdom of complete typewriters consigned from foreign countries amounted to 5,585 in number, valued at £50,062. The figures for the corresponding periods of 1933 and 1934 were 11,371, valued at £68,105, and 14,189, valued at £115,013.

Mr. LYONS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that under the protection given to this industry the British typewriter trade has received an enormous impetus in their exportation and in their home manufacture: and, secondly, whether, in view of the large figures which he has disclosed, he will ask the Advisory Committee to give, on
their own initiative, consideration to further protection as may be required from time to time?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that the Import Duties Advisory Committee considered an application for an increase of duty only this year, and that an Order was imposed on the 4th May of this year.

Mr. LYONS: In view of the very great figures now disclosed, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Committee to give, on their own initiative, immediate consideration to increasing the protective tariff in the interests of British trade?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That will be dealt with in the ordinary way in the Committee.

Mr. CAPORN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the making of each of these imported typewriters would provide work for one week for three persons in this country?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House who are buying these imported typewriters?

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a statement as to the results of the imposition of quotas against Japanese imports throughout the Empire; and whether there is any likelihood of an agreement being reached with Japan with regard to the competition of her cotton and other exports?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The result of the quotas has been to restrict imports of Japanese cotton and artificial silk piece goods into the Colonies, but sufficient time has not elapsed, particularly in view of existing stocks, to estimate the effect on the United Kingdom export trade, though it is understood that a number of orders and substantial inquiries for future business are now being received. In reply to the last part of the question I cannot at present add to the final paragraph of the statement which I made in this House on the 7th May.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the negotiations have been broken off already, or whether they are proceeding?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I cannot say that they are broken off.

Mr. LYONS: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention called to the great influx of cheap hosiery, brought into this country under conditions which we would not tolerate, and can he afford any steps at once to safeguard British trade from this very unfair competition?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea where the Japanese got the machinery with which they are making this hosiery?

MANUFACTURED IMPORTS.

Captain MACDONALD: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that no danger to the economic position of this country is involved in the recent increases in manufactured imports; and, if not, whether it is proposed to take any steps to deal with the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I see no reason to modify the view I expressed in reply to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), on the 28th March. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (ANTI-AIRCRAFT DETACHMENTS).

Sir WALDRON SMITHERS: 9.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, by how many anti-aircraft detachments the Territorial Army were below establishment during the July manoeuvres around London; and, in view of the necessity of maintaining the efficiency of these units, will he make special efforts to bring these units up to full strength?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The Territorial Army units which took part in the exercises mentioned were searchlight units. On 31st July last the strength of these units was below recruiting establishment to the extent of 33 officers and 1,260 other ranks; and 80 per cent. of the strength took part in the exercises. Steps aimed at bringing these units up to establishment are under consideration.

Sir W. SMITHERS: May I ask my right hon. Friend what immediate steps are being taken to bring these units up to strength?

Mr. HACKING: I cannot go into details, but the whole matter of recruitment is under consideration at the present moment.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL.

Mr. HICKS: 10.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any decision has been reached to move the Royal Arsenal from Woolwich?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir.

Mr. HICKS: In view of the answer, and the persistent rumours regarding the removal of the Royal Arsenal, is it possible for the Minister to make an early statement, in order to allay the anxiety of people who are dependent upon it for their livelihood?

Mr. HACKING: As the hon. Member knows, the whole matter is now under inquiry but I do not think that it will be possible to make any early statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 11.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the nature and value of purchases of foreign imports made by his Department in the last 12 months for which complete figures are available?

Mr. HACKING: Excluding petrol and oils, the value of foreign goods purchased on headquarters contracts during the year ending on 30th September last was approximately £103,000. The principal items in round figures were foodstuffs £44,600, timber £33,000, and warlike stores £18,000.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is there any reason why these foodstuffs should not be purchased in England?

Mr. HACKING: It is largely a question of expense. May I point out that only 7 per cent. of our total requirement of food is purchased abroad?

Sir G. FOX: 43.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the nature and value of purchases of Foreign imports made by his department in the last 12 months for which complete figures are available?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The total value of purchases of foreign origin for the calendar year 1933 was approximately £104,000. The principal items were hemp, tobacco, turpentine, timber, tinned salmon and tinned tomatoes. This figure, however, does not include petroleum products, which are necessarily largely of foreign origin, nor copper and tin ingots and tin bar, the raw material for which is partly of foreign and partly of Dominion origin.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (POOR RELIEF).

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state to the last convenient date the number of persons and their dependants who are in receipt of able-bodied poor relief in Scotland?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): On the 15th September last, 63,589 able-bodied persons with 117,564 dependants were in receipt of poor relief in Scotland.

Mr. PIKE: Do those figures compare favourably or unfavourably with those of three years ago?

Mr. SKELTON: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can my hon. Friend say whether the bulk of those persons were registered at the unemployment exchange?

Mr. SKELTON: Again, I must ask for notice of the question.

Mr. MACLEAN: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief on the last available date?

Mr. SKELTON: On the 15th September last, 162,142 poor persons with 209,535 dependants were in receipt of poor relief in Scotland. These numbers include vagrants and persons in receipt of outdoor medical relief.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the number of vagrants under medical relief separated in the tables and in the total?

Mr. SKELTON: No, Sir; they are not so separated in the answer that I have given, but they can be communicated privately to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any further statement to make on the subject of our relations with the Irish Free State?

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any negotiations have been entered into during the recess for the settlement of outstanding difficulties between this country and the Irish Free State?

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make with regard to matters outstanding between the Irish Free State and ourselves?

Mr. HANNON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any proposals have been submitted by His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State during the recess for the renewal of negotiations with the object of the settlement of the existing disputes between this country and the Irish Free State?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No negotiations have taken place with the Irish Free State on the subject of the outstanding disputes. The position remains that, as I have previously stated, we are ready at any time to enter into negotiations with the Irish Free State Government for the settlement of all outstanding questions if a satisfactory basis for discussion can be found.

Mr. LEWIS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether since this House last met any overtures have been made by the Irish Free State Government for a settlement of the matters in dispute?

Mr. THOMAS: No overtures so far as I am aware have been made by the Irish Free State Government.

An HON. MEMBER: Have you made any?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that the 'Government are stating all over the country that now is not the time to divide up into parties and that we should co-operate, is not this the time to extend
the right hand of friendship to the Irish and say: "Let us be friends, and then we will discuss terms?"

Mr. THOMAS: That is what I have been trying to do for 12 months.

Mr. PALING: Does not the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman follow the answer given to a question in the Irish Free State Parliament, and, in view of this stalemate, is it beneath the dignity of the right hon. Gentleman to do something to re-open negotiations?

Mr. THOMAS: If dignity were involved, it ought not to be beneath the dignity of anybody to try to bring about a settlement, but nobody ought to know better than my hon. Friend that, when one of the issues involved is the continuance or otherwise of a Dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations, it would be a fatal mistake to enter upon negotiations unless there were a real and genuine prospect of a settlement, because it would do more harm than good.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. LUNN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has now received a report regarding the economic situation in Newfoundland; and, if so, whether it is proposed to publish it?

Mr. THOMAS: I have been in telegraphic communication with the Governor and am able to assure the hon. Member that a general report on the economic situation in Newfoundland will be furnished towards the end of the year. I will gladly arrange for it to be laid before the House as soon as it is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 19.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the number of trees that are to be planted during the present season; the number of men that are to be employed; and the cost?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): During the current season the Forestry Commissioners expect to plant some 50 million trees.
Particulars of the expenditure on wages in and about planting work appear in the Appendix to the Department's Estimates. The total is £266,000 and the estimated number to be employed is from 2,500 to 3,200.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether those figures represent an increase or a decrease on the 1931 figures of planting and expenditure?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLTICAL PARTIES (UNIFORMS).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government intend to introduce measures for the preservation of order at political meetings?

Mr. LEWIS: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the Government's intentions with regard to the restriction of the wearing of uniforms by members of political organisations?

Mr. V. ADAMS: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make with regard to legislation dealing with the provocative wearing of political uniforms?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): This matter has continued to engage my attention but I regret that I am not in a position to state whether legislation on this subject will form a part of the Government's legislative programme for next Session.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it proposed to hold any further conversations with the leaders of the Opposition on this matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No doubt further conversations may take place.

Mr. V. ADAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman in the meantime tell us how much the Italian buffoonery in Hyde Park cost the ratepayers in extra police protection?

Oral Answers to Questions — DERELICT AREAS (COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS).

Mr. STOREY: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now make a
statement upon the report of the commissioner who investigated the position of the distressed areas on the North East Coast?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The answer to my right hon. Friend's Question will be covered by the statement which the Prime Minister proposes to make in reply to questions addressed to him dealing with the distressed areas generally. Perhaps, therefore, my hon. Friend will be good enough to wait for that statement.

Mr. LAWSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement of policy with respect to the reports of the four commissioners who have investigated conditions in Wales, Scotland, Durham, and Cumberland?

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when the Government intend to introduce legislation for the relief of distressed areas?

Mr. D. GRENFEL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the reports of the commissioners on the derelict areas have been considered; and, if so, what action it is proposed to take?

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister what special arrangements are proposed by the Government in respect of the distressed areas and, particularly, in regard to the North East Coast?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The Government have examined the reports of the investigators, and have reached certain conclusions. They feel, however, that a matter of this importance cannot adequately be dealt with within the limits of Question and Answer, and they, accordingly, propose to give a day, which will be arranged through the usual channels, for discussion. As a preliminary to that discussion, the Government have decided, after consultation with, and with the consent of the investigators, to publish the reports without delay. I would, however, remind the House that an assurance was given to these gentlemen that any matters they reported to the Government would be treated as confidential, and it will be necessary that, before publication, the investigators should be given the opportunity to excise
from their reports such confidential matter as, in their opinion, should not be made public.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the steps proposed to be taken will be taken this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think my hon. Friend might just await the Debate. It is no use nibbling at the subject. A complete statement will be made as quickly as possible.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: Will the recommendations of the Commissioners be given in full?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh. yes, certainly. The whole reports will be given, with the exception of the excised parts, which will not affect the recommendations.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are the statements that have to be deleted from the reports of such a shocking character that the whole country, now unaware of the awful conditions under which people in the distressed areas live, will be shocked into realising the awful state of affairs in those areas, and is it the case that the Government are ashamed of the situation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the hon. Member will start no such hare as that. The excisions will be made by the Commissioners themselves, and the only thing that they will keep in mind is betrayal of the confidence which they were assured would be observed. There is nothing in the nature of horrors or that kind of thing which is to be searched for in order to be deleted.

Mr. LAWSON: While appreciating the Government's decision to publish these reports, is the Prime Minister aware that might considerably invalidate the value of the reports if parts are taken out? May I also ask if the House will have an opportunity at a very early date of discussing the matter; that is, this Session? Will the Government also publish the proposals that were made by the responsible authorities to the Commissioners?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the usual channels might start communications. We desire the Debate to take place as quickly as possible. With
reference to the excision of certain things, the hon. Member must know perfectly well that we said, with the knowledge of the House, that confidential information might be asked for and used in the reports. I can assure the hon. Member and the House, and they will take my word for it—I have read every word of the four documents—that the excisions will not affect the recommendations and will not affect the substance of the reports themselves. It is only am matter of references. It is simply a question of information sent in under conditions of confidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

UNEMPLOYMENT ACT.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state when Part II of the Unemployment Act will be brought into operation?

Mr. STANLEY: Subject to the approval by Parliament of the regulations for the assessment of need, I propose, with the consent of the Treasury, to fix 7th January and 1st March, 1935, as the first and second appointed days respectively.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when the Debate will take place on the regulations?

Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid not at the moment.

Mr. THORNE: Have the Government any intention of bringing forward a Supplementary Estimate to relieve the distressed areas?

Mr. STANLEY: That is not a question which the hon. Member ought to address to my Department.

Mr. THORNE: To which Department?

Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall have the Regulations in hand?

Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member any act information. The Regulations have been received, and they are now under the consideration of the Government.

Miss WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is to be any financial provision for the local authorities who have had to bear the additional burden of the unemployed who are now on public relief?

Mr. STANLEY: Again, that is a question which my Department cannot answer.

JUVENILE INSTRUCTION CENTRES.

Mr. WHITE: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour how many local authorities have submitted proposals for the provision of centres of instruction for unemployed boys and girls in response to Circular A.C. 3; and how many of these proposals relate to urban and rural areas, respectively?

Mr. STANLEY: Up to the 26th October, 70 education authorities had submitted formal proposals for the provision of courses of instruction for unemployed boys and girls. It is not practicable to differentiate between urban and rural areas, as many proposals cover both types of area, but 28 of the proposals are from the Loudon County Council, counties of cities and county boroughs, and 42 from counties. My Department has received particulars of a number of other proposals though these have not yet been formally submitted.

Mr. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far that fulfils what was necessary in the circumstances?

Mr. STANLEY: I do not think that I can say more except that the matter is proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for how many young persons these schemes are intended to cater?

Mr. STANLEY: Not without notice.

STATISTICS.

Mr. LUNN: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons receiving allowance from Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. STANLEY: These allowances will begin on Mr. LUNN asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons receiving allowance from the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. STANLEY: These allowances will begin on the first appointed day which it is proposed should be the 7th January next.

Mr. LUNN: Seeing that the unemployment figure is still more than 2,000,000,
have the Government any proposals whatever in order to find work for the unemployed?

Mr. STANLEY: I think if the hon. Member will study the decrease in unemployment and the increase in employment since the time he sat upon these benches, he will be able to test the measure of the Government's success.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the statistics of the increasing number of persons on relief?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can arrange to include in the monthly statistics of unemployment supplied to the Press a table showing the unemployment in the five main groups, namely: manufacturing, mining and quarrying, building and contracting, transport, and services?

Mr. STANLEY: I regret that it would not be possible to include these additional statistics without delaying the issue of the statement to the Press. As my hon. Friend knows, comprehensive statistics for 102 industry groups are regularly published each month in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. LUNN: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government have any schemes in hand for the relief of the unemployed during the coming winter?

Mr. STANLEY: As has been stated on many occasions the general policy of the Government is directed to restoring industrial activity as the only effectual method of reducing unemployment. As regards special measures for relieving the situation in the depressed areas I would ask the hon. Member to await the replies to be given to later questions on the paper which have been addressed to the Prime Minister.

GOVAN.

Mr. MACLEAN: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registering at the Govan Employment Exchange on the last convenient date?

Mr. STANLEY: At 24th September, 1934, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 8,505 unemployed persons on the registers of the Govan Employment Exchange.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will appoint a representative of the Principality of Wales to the commission which the Government propose to set up to inquire into the administration of the policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, the Charter granted to the British Broadcasting Corporation has still more than two years to run. He may, however, rest assured that, in considering the question of the procedure to be adopted in this connection, the Government will bear in mind all relevant suggestions.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May we take it that a specific representative will be provided for the Principality of Wales?

Sir K. WOOD: I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply that I have just given.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CHIEF PRESIDENCY MAGISTRATE, CALCUTTA.

Captain A. EVANS: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has now received a report from the Government of Bengal on the case of the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hales); whether an inquiry has been made into the magistrate's conduct who was responsible in this case; and whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): Yes, Sir; I have now received a report from the Government of Bengal on the questions raised in this House regarding the conduct of the Hon. S. K. Sinha as Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. In two cases, one of which was concerned with the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hales), Mr. Sinha can be considered to have committed an error of judgment; but after reviewing all the circumstances of these two cases, the Government of Bengal have satisfied themselves that there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Sinha did not act throughout in perfect good faith, or to cast any
reflection on his judicial probity. They are also satisfied that there is no foundation for the allegations that have been made in the remaining cases. Mr. Sinha's judicial conduct has already been passed under review by the Calcutta, High Court, and after taking the comments of that Court into account the Government of Bengal have decided that there is no justification for executive action in the matter. Their view is supported by the Government of India and after a careful examination of the information supplied to me I find myself in entire agreement. Out of 638 appealable cases disposed of by Mr. Sinha and 238 actual appeals, only 30 have succeeded. The percentage of successful appeals to appeals is much below the percentage for the courts of First Class Magistrates in Bengal as a whole.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (SELECT COMMITPEE'S REPORT).

Mr. V. ADAMS: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for India when the Report of the Joint Select Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform may be expected?

Sir S. HOARE: I suggest that my hon. Friend should await the Resolution on this matter which will he moved on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CORN ACREAGE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of acres, under wheat, oats, and barley cultivation during the present year, and figures for 1933 and 1932?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information desired.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time circulate a statement showing the number of places where these commodities are not now being cultivated?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I can only circulate the answer to the question. If the hon. Member desires any further information, I shall be glad to give it if he will put a question down.

Following is the statement:

Acreage under Wheat, Barley and Oats as returned in June in each of the years 1934, 1933 and 1932 in England and Wales, Scotland and Great Britain.


—
England and Wales.
Scotland.
Great Britain.


1934.*
1933.
1932.
1934.*
1933.
1932.
1934.*
1933.
1932.




Acres.
Acres.
Acres.
Acres.
Acres.
Acres.
Acres.
Acres.
Acres.


Wheat
…
1,759,000
1,660,389
1,287,944
93,000
78,386
52,072
1,852,000
1,738,775
1,340,016


Barley
…
861,000
751,349
960,542
95,000
59,808
68,868
956,000
811,187
1,029,410


Oats
…
1,401,000
1,494,797
1,580,377
820,000
855,857
867,374
2,221,000
2,350,654
2,447,751


*The figures for 1934 are subject to revision.

EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. T. SMITH: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the latest available figures of those employed in agriculture, and comparable figures for 1933?

Number of Workers* employed on agricultural holdings above one acre in extent as returned in June in each of the years 1934 and 1933 in England and Wales, Scotland and Great Britain.


—
England and Wales.
Scotland.
Great Britain.


1934.†
1933.
1934.†
1933.
1934†
1933.


Regular Workers.

Number.
Number.
Number.
Number.
Number.
Number.


Males 21 years old and over
…
415,300
422,519
58,700
59,028
474,000
481,547


Males under 21 ears old
…
107,100
113,589
19,200
19,228
126,300
132,817


Women and Girls
…
53,200
59,603
18,000
17,807
71,200
77,410


Casual Workers.
…








Males 21 years old and over
…
2,400
78,531
6,800
6,998
79,200
85,529


Males under 21 years old
…
9,200
10,924
3,300
3,789
12,500
14,713


Women and Girls
…
30,500
30,380
6,100
5,615
36,600
35,995


Total Workers
…
687,700
715,546
112,100
112,465
799,800
828,011


* Excluding the occupier, his wife and domestic servants.


† The figures for 1934 are subject to revision.

SUGAR-BEET.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has received the report of the committee on sugar-beet; and, if so, whether he is in a position to outline the long-term policy of the Government towards this branch of industry?

Mr. ELLIOT: The report referred to has not yet been received. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 30th July last to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, South-West when I stated that it was expected that the committee would report in November.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am circulating figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

Mr. SMITH: Having regard to the fact that considerable employment would be found in this branch of agriculture if the industry were assured of stability, will the right hon. Gentleman accelerate the decision of the Government in the matter?

Mr. ELLIOT: I can assure the hon. Member that the report will be taken into consideration as soon as it is received.

MILK PRODUCTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if any changes are contemplated for regulating the import of
oversea milk products and enabling home milk producers to earn a reasonable livelihood?

Mr. ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend will recall that the situation arising from the low level of prices of manufactured milk products, butter and cheese in particular, has been dealt with by the provision, under the Milk Act, 1934, of advances to Milk Marketing Boards. Grants are also being made to the boards for improving the quality of milk and for increasing the demand. No immediate changes are in contemplation. As regards processed milks, the quantitative regulation of imports is being continued. The Governments of the foreign countries mainly concerned in the United Kingdom market have been asked to arrange for the following reductions in supplies during the last quarter of this year, the reduction in each case being based on imports during the corresponding quarter of 1932; cream, 35 per cent.; condensed whole and condensed skimmed milk, 30 per cent., milk powder, 25 per cent. Endeavours are being made, which the Government have every hope will be successful, to secure the continued agreement of the Dominion Governments concerned in the arrangements proposed in respect of these products.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask whether butter is included in the products to be regulated? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British butter to-day is selling at wholly unremunerative prices?

Mr. ELLIOT: Butter is not included in the reductions which I have ennumerated, and, with regard to the low price for butter, that is dealt with in the first part of my reply to the Question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask what these restrictions mean when translated into terms of liquid milk what percentage they are of the total output of milk?

Mr. ELLIOT: I cannot say without notice, but the hon. Member knows that they represent a small proportion of the total milk output of the country.

MEAT IMPORTS (REGULATION).

Mr. LAMBERT: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can announce the decision of the Government relating to the regulation of oversea meat supplies?

Mr. ELLIOT: Following the issue of the Government White Paper on the Livestock Situation (Cmd. 4651) discussions have taken place, and are still proceeding, with representatives of the Dominion and foreign countries supplying meat to the United Kingdom. I am not in a position at present to make any further statement with regard to long-term policy, but pending a final decision on this matter in the light of these discussions interim arrangements are under consideration with the exporting countries concerned for the regulation of meat imports for the period 1st July, 1934, to 31st March, 1935, when the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act expires. I am glad to be able to say that a substantial measure of co-operation has already been afforded.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right lion. Gentleman assure the cattle-raising districts of the country that they will be able to carry on their industry with a reasonable hope of a profit?

Mr. ELLIOT: I could not give such an assurance as that to any industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PEDESTRIANS CROSSING PLACES.

Mr. WHITE: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement with regard to the working of the system of marked crossing places for pedestrians?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, since he put his question on the Order Paper, progress has been made in the provision of crossing places for pedestrians in London, and revised Regulations have been brought into force. I am aiming at the provision of some 10,000 crossing places in the Central London Area of which some 5,000 have already been laid down. As to the provinces, I have issued a circular (of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy) to all local authorities concerned drawing attention to the provisions of Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. I understand that these authorities are engaged, in consultation with the Chief Officers of Police, in framing schemes for the establishment of crossing places, and that these will be submitted to me in due course for approval, as the Act requires. A number of local authorities have, of
their own volition, laid down crossing places in their areas. The working of the crossing places in London is being carefully watched by my officers and the police authorities; and although some time must necessarily elapse before all pedestrians and drivers of vehicles conform to the rules upon which the success of the system depends, I am satisfied that the provision of the crossing places is already making for a more orderly use of the highway by all classes of road users.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Is the Minister of Transport satisfied that these schemes of his are getting wide enough publicity?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am grateful for the additional publicity which the hon. and gallant Member has given.

Mr. WILMOT: Is the hon. Member aware that unlighted beacons are a source of extra danger at night in that the motorist is unaware that it is a crossing and the pedestrian thinks that he has the right of way?

Sir W. BRASS: May I ask why the present regulations have been brought into operation on the day when the House reassembles instead of waiting until Parliament has had an opportunity of debating them?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In reply to the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), I have learned in my brief experience that it is quite impossible to please everybody. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), I do not think that the House has been deprived of any opportunity. The regulations have come into force in order to meet the increasing number of crossings which have been put down.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Is the Minister of Transport aware that many of his beacons have been erected in positions where they are quite invisible to approaching vehicles by day or night, and is it not a great mistake that his light should be hidden in any way under a bushel?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is the hon. Member aware that so numerous are these beacons in many streets that they have the appearance of an orange grove?

RAILWAY BRIDGES.

Mr. L. SMITH: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of schemes of replacement which have hitherto been adopted in respect of the 1,136 weak bridges in England as scheduled in the railway companies' list; and how many of such adopted schemes have actually been carried out?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot identify the list referred to by my hon. Friend. Highway authorities are well aware of my readiness to make grants at the rate of 75 per cent. towards the cost of approved schemes for the reconstruction of weak bridges. Since the 1st April, 1933, 102 schemes for the reconstruction, strengthening or enlargement of weak bridges owned by railway or canal companies or in other private ownership have been approved for grant from the Road Fund.

Mr. SMITH: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the progress that is being made with replacement, and is he considering some means of accelerating it?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am by no means satisfied with the progress that has been made. My hon. Friend is aware that the grant from the Road Fund is an exceptionally high one, 75 per cent., and I wish that more authorities would avail themselves of it.

MOTOR-CAR INSURANCE (THIRD PARTY RISK).

Mr. GUY: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport the total premium income of insurance companies in respect of third party liability under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, for the year 1933; and the total amount paid during the same year in settlement of third party claims or in satisfaction of judgment or decree of court?

Mr. HORE - BELISHA: Authorised insurers are under no obligation to keep separate records of their premium income in respect of third party liability under the Road Traffic Act or of the sums paid in settlement of claims. The information required by my hon. Friend is therefore not available and there is no power to require authorised insurers to compile or to furnish it.

MOTOR VEHICLES (EXHAUST FUMES).

Mr. ALBERY: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now give
the result of any recent investigation concerning the effect of exhaust fumes of motor vehicles in crowded thoroughfares?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no information about any investigation other than that to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend's question on the same subject on the 30th July.

Mr. ALBERY: Does that mean that my hon. Friend is satisfied that there is no danger to public health in narrow thoroughfares from the exhaust of motor vehicles, and would he say whether any air test has been taken?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, I am not satisfied in either one sense or the other.
I have called attention to a Home Office inquiry on the subject. Those who inquired into the matter on that occasion were satisfied that none of those troubles to which my hon. Friend refers occur from this source.

Mr. ALBERY: Does my hon. Friend realise that I put the question on the Paper on two occasions and drew his attention to the matter in the hope that he would satisfy himself?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN WARSHIP'S VISIT (COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA).

Sir G. FOX: 44.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, on the occasion of the recent visit of the German warship to Portsmouth, any literature in German was distributed to the visiting crew by Communist activities; and what steps the Admiralty takes to prevent practices of this kind on the occasion of a friendly visit?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): A certain amount of literature in German was distributed by Communist agents to members of the visiting crew on leave ashore in the city of Portsmouth in places where the Admiralty had no control. The Royal Navy would always take such steps as were possible to prevent its guests from being subjected to annoyance. These steps would depend entirely on the circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. WILMOT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement
to make with regard to the World Economic Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is nothing which I can usefully add to the reply on this subject which I gave on 27th March last to the hon. Member for Gower, except to say that the further discussions referred to in that reply are proceeding under the auspices of the Economic Committee of the League of Nations, though present conditions in certain countries rather forbid early results.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

MATCHES (EXCISE AND CUSTOMS DUTY).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage increase or decrease in the quantity of matches on which Excise Duty and Customs Duty, respectively, were payable during the first six months of the present financial year as compared with the corresponding period in the last financial year?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): No calculations of quantities of actual matches are possible. A comparison of the numbers of containers of matches on which duty was payable during the six months ended 30th September, 1934, with that for the corresponding period in 1933 shows the following increases, namely:


Excise
0.83 per cent.


Customs
0.37 per cent.

SUPER-TAX.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage change in the assessment of Super-tax for the latest year for which the figures are now available as compared with the previous year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The latest year for which figures are available is 1932–33. The amount of Surtax in assessment for that year by the 30th September last was £47,750,000. The amount in assessment on the 30th September, 1933, in respect of the year 1931–32 was £54,000,000. The difference between these two figures represents a fall in produce of over 11 per cent.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. WILMOT: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any negotiations are taking place on the subject of Britain's War debts to America?

Captain MACDONALD: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the position with regard to the next instalment on the Anglo-American debt which falls due in December next?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both questions is in the negative.

Captain MACDONALD: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any steps have been taken or are contemplated by the Government to put this vexed question on a more satisfactory basis?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, there is nothing fresh.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY ARRANGEMENTS.

Mr. ALBERY: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make a statement on negotiations concerning international currency arrangements?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no new statement to make on the matter.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the American Ambassador was expressing an official opinion in what he stated as to the necessity or advisability of currency stabilisation between America and Great Britain.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the Ambassador was expressing his own opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROPOSED EASTERN MUTUAL GUARANTEE PACT.

Mr. MANDER: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the negotiations for an Eastern mutual assurance pact?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): Both the German and Polish Governments have indicated to the French Government, and it is understood also to the Soviet Government, certain difficulties which they see to the conclusion of the Mutual Guarantee Pact on the lines pro-
posed last summer by the French and Soviet Governments as amended at the suggestion of His Majesty's Government. We have not been informed what action, if any, the French and Soviet Governments propose to take in response to these observations from Berlin and Warsaw.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to proceed with the negotiations under this pact, or has it been abandoned?

Mr. EDEN: I think that depends on the French and Soviet Governments who are the originators of this proposal.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not much better to enter into no pacts since you never know how the circumstances may change?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. MANDER: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position of the Disarmament Conference; and what progress has been made with the work of the Air Committee?

Mr. T. SMITH: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any statement to make on the present position of the Disarmament Conference?

Mr. EDEN: When the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference adjourned in June it issued instructions to four committees and laid certain tasks on the Bureau of the Conference. The Bureau was called upon to co-ordinate the work of these committees; to seek, by whatever means it deemed appropriate and with a view to the general acceptance of a disarmament convention, a solution of the outstanding problems; and to take the necessary steps at the proper time to ensure that when the General Commission was again convened it would have before it as far as possible a complete draft convention.
The President of the Conference reviewed the situation in a letter of 12th September addressed to the members of the Bureau. The President expressed the opinion that the work entrusted to the Bureau under the resolution of the General Commission could best be undertaken following on the efforts to be made by the Governments to secure a solution of the outstanding political problems.
The President took note of negotiations which were in progress or in contemplation, and stated that it seemed to him undesirable, while these efforts were being made, to convene the Bureau. He undertook to review the situation again before November.
In a further communication of 24th September, the President summarised the work of the committees which had been set up under the resolution of the General Commission. He stated, as regards the Air Committee, that the chairman of this committee was of opinion that pending negotiations between the principally interested Powers it would be preferable not to call a meeting of the committee for the moment.

Mr. MANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to when the committee or the bureau are likely to meet?

Mr. EDEN: I cannot make any statement about that now.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SITUATION.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to give the House on the European situation?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Mr. DAVIES: Arising out of that very brief reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us anything at all as to the situation in the Balkans at the moment?

Mr. EDEN: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question to that effect, I will try to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA.

Mr. LEWIS: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the subject of our relations with the Government of Austria?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend will no doubt recall that on the 27th September the following joint statement was issued at Geneva on behalf of His Majesty's Government and of the French and Italian Governments:
After having proceeded to a fresh examination of the Austrian situation the
representatives of France, the United Kingdom and Italy have agreed in the name of their Governments to recognise that the Declaration of February 17th regarding the necessity of maintaining the independence and integrity of Austria in accordance with the treaties in force retains its full effect and will continue to inspire their common policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE).

Mr. McENTEE: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any information to give the House on the position of slum clearance?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): At 30th September last, the latest date for which figures are available, the position was that 60,242 houses in clearance areas were included in clearance or compulsory purchase orders submitted for confirmation or in agreements for purchase. The total number of new dwellings approved for rehousing was 54,994, of which 26,926 had been completed and a further 19,301 were under construction.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend say then, why the Labour party the other day stated that only 11,000 had been completed?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON REFUSE (DISPOSAL).

Mr. McENTEE: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether the advisory committee on London refuse have finished their work and reported; and, if so, what action the Ministry of Health propose to take in the matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: The committee in question have made an interim report dealing with the disposal of house and trade refuse. I understand that the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, of which the committee in question is a sub-committee, have asked for the observations of the Common Council of the City and of the Metropolitan Borough Councils on the report and, after these have been received, propose to communicate with me.

Mr. McENTEE: When is the report likely to be made available to Members of the House?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member will understand that the ordinary processes
of the consideration of a report are being followed in this case, and, until they are completed, I am afraid I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (RECIPIENTS).

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 62.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of able-bodied persons in receipt of poor relief (public assistance) in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the years ended 31st December, 1929, 1931 and 1933?

Sir H. YOUNG: The returns made to my Department do not distinguish able-bodied persons in receipt of poor relief. The figures available are for the numbers of persons ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation and include their dependants. The average numbers of these, including dependants who were in receipt of out-relief in money and kind in England and Wales during the years ended on the 31st December, 1929, 1931 and 1933 were 368,877, 314,843 and 558,932 respectively, These figures include cases in which the primary cause of relief was sickness, and not unemployment. As regards Northern Ireland, I have no information and as regards Scotland I would refer my hon. Friend to the Secretary of State.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: What percentage of this increase is due to the Anomalies Act?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why there has been so much more sickness since the National Government came into office?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 63.
asked the Secretary of State foi the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the present position in Palestine?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am not sure what particular matters in Palestine the hon. Member has in mind, but I think the House would be interested to know that the High Commissioner during the summer authorised a supplementary labour schedule for the admission as immigrants of 1,200 skilled and unskilled workmen, and that I have now learnt that the Acting High Commissioner has authorised the grant of
1,200 immigration certificates in anticipation and on account of the labour schedule for the six months' period ending 31st March, 1935.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRESFORD COLLIERY DISASTER (INQUIRY).

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will state the course he is taking in the inquiry into the cause of the disaster at Gresford Colliery; whether evidence has been invited from men employed in the area of the explosion previous to the occurrence; and whether any steps are being taken to make the workings accessible for the purpose of the inquiry and for recovering the bodies lying in the mine?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The inquiry into the causes and circumstances of the explosion at Gresford Colliery is being held under Section 83 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, by a court, the constitution of which was settled after consultation with and in accordance with the wishes of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain. I understand that evidence is to be taken from a large number of witnesses and, subject to the directions of the court, the North Wales Miners' Association is at liberty to bring forward as witnesses any workmen whose evidence it thinks likely to advance the progress of the inquiry.
As regards the last part of the question, I cannot say more at present than that the changing conditions as regards the gases present in the shafts are being studied and that the subsequent question of recovery operations must be the subject of consultation between the representatives of all those concerned.
In this connection, I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the Commissioner's statement at the opening of the court on 25th October. He said: "it would appear that the course which for the time being this inquiry can best follow is:

(1) To take evidence as to the condition of the mine and the operations connected with its working prior to the explosion;
(2) Take evidence of the occurrence of the explosion, and the events following thereafter;
33
(3) Take such evidence as to the cause as is now available.
It may be that having completed the first and second parts we may have to consider whether the inquiry should stand adjourned until such time as further evidence as to the cause is available."

Oral Answers to Questions — HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries whether his attention has been drawn to the suspension of the herring fishing in East Anglia last week; whether he is aware of the gravity of the situation which will arise among fishermen and others if another fishing ends in financial loss; and whether the Government proposes to intervene so as to give the fishermen some hope that, if they continue the prosecution of their calling, they may reap some reward for their labour.

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. I am aware that the herring fishing in East Anglia was suspended last week, and of the gravity of the situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself have been keeping closely in touch with the position, and, as the hon. Member knows, have been in consultation with representatives of the industry. The position in general has been reviewed by the Sea-Fish Commission in their report, which is now under consideration. The Government have been able by negotiation to obtain certain concessions in Poland and other Baltic States and will continue to press for all possible facilities for this industry. The hon. Member can be assured that my right hon. Friend and I will continue to keep in close touch with the situation.

Sir M. WOOD: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the situation to which this question refers has nothing to do with the question which was investigated by the Sea-Fish Commission, but is about the emergency which took place last week? Have the Government taken any steps to prevent a recurrence of what happened last week?

Mr. LOFTUS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday the flag went up and the fleets were forbidden to leave the harbour; and, in view of the extreme urgency of the case and of the fact that
the fish will be gone in four weeks' time, will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement with regard to effective Government aid either to-day or tomorrow?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) said, that the situation is both a short-term and a long-term one. As regards the short-term one, I would draw his attention in particular to the part of my answer in which I said that the Government would continue to press for all possible facilities for this industry—that is, with foreign countries. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), who asked at what date any further statement could be made, I understand that negotiations are at present proceeding with the German Government in respect of mutual trade in general, and I hope it will be possible for a statement on that subject to be made before the end of the week.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the distributing facilities for the fish, especially for cheap fish, in this country are well organised and afford the best home market?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir, but that is one aspect of the situation which was referred to in particular in the report of the Sea-Fish Commission and is clearly part of the long-term remedies as against the immediate remedy for the distressing position of the herring industry.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: But is it not a matter of immediate importance to secure that the glut of herring has not more effect than at present on the retail prices?

Mr. ELLIOT: It would be difficult, by way of question and answer, to discuss retail prices, but they have in very many towns fallen very considerably.

Mr. HARBORD: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling among the fishermen in the ports of Yarmouth and Lowestoft to the effect that financial assistance should be forthcoming from the Department—a very widely expressed opinion that the Department have failed to give the help that is urgently required? Ruin stares them in the face. [HON.
MEMBERS "Order!"] I do ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware of that intense feeling, and is he going to give immediate effect to it before these men are absolutely ruined?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am certainly aware of the feeling, all the more since we held a very representative conference, at which the representatives of the fishers themselves were present in large numbers. As for immediate assistance, I think it is agreed by all that what is required is an immediate outlet for the fish, purchasers for the fish, and on that question the Government are making all efforts to ensure that, in particular, export markets, which the fishermen themselves say are the all-important factor, are opened as soon as possible.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a summary of the proceedings at the conference at the Scottish Office the other day, showing the points that were raised by the various representatives of the industry who took part in the conference?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I could scarcely give that undertaking, nor do I think it would be of very great importance. I will certainly consider any suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend, but I could not hold out any great hopes that such a step would be taken or that it would be useful

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the retail shop-keeper has still got the war mind and is charging very high prices, and that that is why there is no sale for herring in the home market?

Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: Will my right hon. Friend meet representatives of the industry in this House?

Mr. ELLIOT: Certainly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are always most willing to meet any representations by Members of this House.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the way out is to nationalise this industry?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I just say "Thank you" to my colleagues for their reception on my return to the House, and at the same time express the hope that the Prime Minister has come back quite recovered in health and strength. The question I have to put to him is whether he is in a position to tell us the Government's proposals as to the course of business during the week. I would like to ask him whether it is not possible to give more time to the consideration of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, seeing the great public interest in the Measure and the number of Members who wish to take part in the discussion on both the Report stage and the Third Reading. The Prime Minister himself has told us that this is a very important and first-class Measure. May I also ask whether the Government will make arrangements during the remainder of this Session for an early Debate on the question of the private traffic in arms which, too, as he is aware, has been occupying public attention very considerably.

The PRIME MINISTER: If I may, I will also extend my felicitations to the right hon. Gentleman on his return and thank him, at the same time, for the sympathy which he has extended towards me. With regard to the business of the House, there is no change in the business announced before the Recess for to-day and to-morrow. This will be:
Tuesday: Incitement to Disaffection Bill, Report stage. Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, Second Reading. That, as the House knows, is only a formal stage.
Wednesday: Incitement to Disaffection Bill, conclusion of the Report stage, and Third Reading.
The variation in the announced business is in that for Thursday, which is: Consideration of a Motion which is to be tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) relating to the simultaneous publication here and in India of the Report of the Joint Select Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform.
Afterwards a Motion to transfer the Betting and Lotteries Bill [Lords] from Standing Committee D to a Committee of the Whole House will be considered; also
a Motion for the appointment of additional Judges to fill vacancies in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. If there be time, the remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and other Orders on the Paper will be taken.
The business for Friday will be announced later.
With regard to the question which the right hon. Gentleman asked about the time for the Report and Third Reading of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, I am informed that before the Recess this Bill came through Committee after a very thorough examination, and that, in order to meet the desires of the Opposition parties, it was then suspended, and the understanding was that it should go through very early on the resumption of the House. The Bill occupied a long time in Standing Committee, and Amendments were made to facilitate its progress and to remove obstacles to its consideration and acceptance. I am informed that there has been ample time for Members to table Amendments to the Bill for consideration on Report. We must therefore get on with this Bill if we are to finish the Session and the work that has to be done before the Session winds up. With regard to the Motion on the private manufacture of arms, I expected that the right hon. Gentleman would put that question. I am perfectly prepared to give time for a Debate on that subject if he will be good enough to set the usual machinery in operation to arrange the date.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us a day for a Debate on the question of arms, but I would like to press him on the question of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, I expect, is aware that only one day's Debate has taken place on the Floor of the House. All the 16 days' discussions have been upstairs, and to give us only three days in the House for what is a highly controversial and extremely important Bill seems altogether too short. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Bill of this character usually comes from upstairs in pretty full time for the Report stage and Third Reading, and I seriously ask him to reconsider the matter and to give us one more day for the consideration of the Amendments.
I repeat that there has been only one day's discussion on the Floor of the House, and I do not think it is reasonable to say that three days is enough. I am informed that, so far as my friends were concerned, there was no understanding at all or agreement to curtail discussion. I do press the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. It may seem ungracious after what the Government have promised in regard to the distressed areas and the other question, but this is a question of overwhelming importance.

The PRIME MINISTER: When the decision of the Government regarding the time for this Bill was made before the Recess there was no indication at all of any objection being taken. It was recognised that, though the Bill was quite an important one, so many changes by way of meeting opposition objections had been made in Committee that it was a very reasonable thing to ask the House when we came back to let it go through in two days. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] That was the view that was taken by my colleagues. Looking at the Debates, I think it was a very reasonable view. I do not quite agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that this is an unusual Bill. As a matter of fact, if he looks up Bills of this size coming down from Committee—

Mr. LANSBURY: It is not the size of the Bill.

The PRIME MINISTER: In the case of a Bill of this size and with the limited number of points in it, a day and a half or something like that on Report, with the Third Reading following, will enable everything to be said about the Bill if the House bends its mind to it.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to ask the Prime Minister how long he proposes to keep the House sitting to-night in the event of the suspension of the Rule. I support fully what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said, and say on behalf of myself and my friends that we never suggested, directly or indirectly, that a limited period of time would satisfy us on the conclusion of this Measure. If the Prime Minister has followed the proceedings in the Standing Committee, he ought to be aware that the whole nature of the opposition there was such as would not make the concluding stages simple and
easy. So far as concessions were made, there were no substantial concessions in the policy of the Measure. If the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule be carried, how far does the Prime Minister propose to make the House sit on the first day after the Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: I venture to hope that my hon. Friend will co-operate with me by expediting the business and taking a reasonable advantage of the time allotted. We would be very glad, if reasonable progress were made, to suspend the consideration of the Bill until to-morrow; and to go on with the other business.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take note of the statement made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)? It is a fact, that in all the reports of the Committee proceedings on the Bill it was made quite clear that there was no attempt or desire for a spirit of compromise. As a matter of fact, there was a spirit of hostility right to the end. It was so prevalent that the Government had to send a Whip upstairs in order to keep supporters of the Government there. May I also call attention to the fact once more, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, that this is such an extraordinary Bill for good or for ill, whether reasonable or not, that it has aroused a great mass of opinion in the country, and there are on the Paper a large number of Clauses and new Amendments. May I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot pursue the spirit of good will which has been expressed this afternoon, and give a further day for the consideration of the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: The announcement was made before the Adjournment quite clearly that the business on resumption would be, on Tuesday, the Report stage, and on Wednesday, 31st October, the Report stage and

Third Reading, and to that no protest was offered.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, taking a little advantage of the fact that no protest was made at that moment, but I think that he also ought to take into account the fact that there is, as he knows full well—his postbag will tell him—very considerable opposition to the Bill, and people outside and inside the House consider that it is one of the most important pieces of legislation which has been brought before this House for some time. I do again appeal to him to give extended time for its consideration. It is all very well to say that he does not want to sit late, but we shall be obliged to sit late if we want to debate the long series of Amendments we wish to move. I again ask him to reconsider the matter.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: If we sit till the early hours of the morning, then, having regard to the Amendments on the Order Paper and the manner in which they have been discussed, will the Prime Minister at that time be prepared to reconsider the question?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but we shall require substantial progress.

Sir W. DAVISON: It is somewhat unusual for the Suspension Motion to be moved on the first day after the Summer Adjournment. Can the Prime Minister assure the House, in view of rumours which have appeared in the Press, that we are not to be asked to sit during the few days of this Session every night with the Rule suspended in order to push forward certain Bills which are not very popular in the country?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 336; Noes, 68.

Division No. 364.]
AYES
[4.8 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Boulton, W. W.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton


Albery, Irving James
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brass, Captain Sir William


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George


Applin Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Broadbent, Colonel John


Assheton, Ralph
Bernays, Robert
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Blindell, James
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover)
Borodale, Viscount
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)


Atholl, Duchess of
Bossom, A. C.
Browne, Captain A. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Graves, Marjorie
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Burghley, Lord
Grigg, Sir Edward
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colnel John


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Burnett, John George
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Butler, Richard Austen
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Caine, G. R. Hall.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Monsell, Rt. Hugh Elsdale


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hales, Harold K.
Moreing, Adrlan C.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morgan, Robert H.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denblgh)


Carver, Major William H.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Castlereagh, Viscount
Harbord, Arthur
Moss, Captain H. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hartland, George A.
Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kennlngt'n)
Munro, Patrick


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nail, Sir Joseph


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsfofd)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hepworth, Joseph
Nunn, William


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Patrick, Colin M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Peake, Osbert


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pearson, William G.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Peat, Charles U.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hornby, Frank
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Colman, N. C. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Petherick, M.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Horobin, Ian M.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W' verh'pt'n, Bllston)


Conant, R. J. E.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pike, Cecil F.


Cook, Thomas A.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G H.


Cooke, Douglas
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Sir Aseheton


Copeland, Ida
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pybus, Sir John


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Radford, E. A.


Craven-Ellis, William
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romt'd)
Ramsay Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Iveagh, Countess of
Ramsbotham, Harwald


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'rO)
Jennings, Roland
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Cross, R. H.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Jonas, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.


Dalkelth, Earl of
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ramer, John R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Knight, Holford
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Denville, Alfred
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rhys. Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Dickie, John P.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rickards, George William


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Robinson, John Roland


Doran, Edward
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ropner, Colonel L.


Drewe, Cedric
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Leckie, J. A.
Ross, Ronald D.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lees-Jones, John
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Duggan, Hubert John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dunglass, Lord
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Eady, George H.
Levy, Thomas
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Liddell Walter S.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lieweilln, Major John J.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Elmley, Viscount
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Locker-Lampoon, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Loftus, Pierce C.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Salley, Harry R.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fermoy, Lord
Mebane, William
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Fox, Sir Glfford
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Gibson, Charles Granville
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-in-F.)


Gledhill, Glibert
McKeag, William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Glossop, C. W. H.
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Goldie, Noel B.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Magnay, Thomas
Soper, Richard


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Maitland, Adam
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Granville, Edgar
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Spens, William Patrick


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)




Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Train, John
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Storey Samuel
Turton, Robert Hugh
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Strauss, Edward A.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hall)
Wise, Alfred R.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Sutcliffe, Harold
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wayland, Sir William A.



Thomas, James P L. (Hereford)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomas, Major L B. (King's Norton)
Weymouth, Viscount
Sir Frederick Thomson and


Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
 Sir George Penny.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Parkinson, John Alien


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Healy, Cahir
Rea, Walter Russell


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cove, William G.
John, William
Thorne, William James


Dagger, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Stephen Owen
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Dobbie, William
Kirkwood, David
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
L[...]n, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, John



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

George Russell Strauss, esquire, for Borough of Lambeth (North Division).

Right honourable Christopher Addison, M.D., F.R.C.S., for County of Wilts (Swindon Division).

Orders of the Day — INCITEMENT TO DISAFFECTION BILL.

As amended (in the Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Directions for search.)

Before making a search under this Act, the person about to make it shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate to attend and witness the search.

The search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by the person making the search and signed by such witnesses, but no such witness shall be required to attend the court as a witness of the, search unless summoned by it.—[Mr. Mallalieu.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Perhaps the House will allow me, in moving this new Clause, which stands in the name of myself and my hon. Friends, to remind it that, this Bill provides that upon a warrant issued by two justices police officers may enter the house of a person if they suspect that he has in the house documents or other articles which may go to prove that he has committed an offence under under the Bill, that is, that he possesses documents which, if circulated among members of His Majesty's Forces, might cause them to be seduced from their duty or allegiance to His Majesty. The object of the new Clause is that when there is a search of any premises for documents which may be considered to come within the Act, as it will then be, there should be present certain neutral parties, as it were, who are not representatives either of the police or of the person whose house is being searched. I think the House will quickly realise the immense importance of allowing police officers to enter the private houses of subjects. It has been done before, as the House knows well, but in my submission it has never been done except for very grave considerations. It is an exceedingly serious matter that anybody's house should be broken into, if necessary by force—that is suggested in this Bill—and the proposal which I and my friends are
putting forward is that somebody should be present to see that fair play is done.
It is not only in the interests of the individual whose house is being searched that we are putting forward this new Clause. It needs very small intelligence to see that if there has been a search of any premises it is perfectly easy for people to say afterwards that things have been taken away by the police, as it is also perfectly easy to say that the police have actually planted incriminating documents or articles in the house. In either case, obviously a great deal of damage will be done if such allegations are made. This Clause would protect the police from such accusations, which we all believe, of course, would be false, but which may be made, and which may do a great deal of damage whether they are false or not. This suggestion, or a very similar one, was made in Committee upstairs, and it was then pointed out by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, and also by the Solicitor-General, that the proposal was fantastic, unpractical and unprecedented. In my suggestion, if it would do good we ought to adopt it, even though it were unprecedented, but I am going to show that the identical proposal which I am now making is already in operation in the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, and has been for 40 years, so that it is quite impossible for representatives of the Government to come forward and describe the proposal as fantastic and unprecedented. This identical Clause is in the Indian Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, and I hope, therefore, that the Law Officers will give it very serious consideration.
One of the reasons advanced against the Clause by the Attorney-General was that apart from being unpractical it was not needed. He said that the police do not do this sort of thing and that we ought to trust them. If that be so, may I suggest that it would not do very much harm to have the Clause in the Bill? In any case, as I have been pointing out, it does not matter whether the police do these things or not, but what matters is that people may say they do them, and, therefore, from the point of view of the police, the Clause ought to be accepted. Another slight objection which was advanced in Committee by the Solicitor-General was that we could not force independent persons to go into the
house with the search party and witness the search. In my submission that is completely disposed of by a later amendment to the Indian Criminal Procedure Code. The suggestion is that the police should call upon two independent inhabitants of the neighbourhood and take them with them to the search to witness it, to make a list of the things taken and the places in which they were found. At the end of the section, as it now reads, in the Indian Criminal Procedure Code there is actually a provision which says that the courts may issue an order in writing to witnesses to be present at the search and to act as witnesses. Therefore, I submit that every single objection which was urged against this proposal on behalf of the Government when it was considered in Committee is absolutely 'invalid, having regard to the provisions of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code.
The Law Officers poured scorn upon the necessity for having independent witnesses present when a search was taking place. Upstairs, I ventured to quote a passage from that celebrated judgment by Lord Camden, which has been quoted again and again, and which bears upon this particular point, and I am going to quote it again, because it shows that over a long period of years those responsible for administering justice in this country have realised how important it is, no less in the interests of the police than of the person whose house is being searched, that there should be somebody present to see what is taking place, so that no misunderstandings can arise. Lord Camden said with regard to the warrant then under consideration, which was a slightly different warrant, though not different in any way that is of practical importance:
The warrant is to be executed by the messengers in the presence or absence of the party, as the messengers think fit, and without a witness to testify what passes at the time of the transaction; so that when the papers are gone, as the only witnesses are the trespassers, the party injured is left without proof. If the injury falls upon an innocent person he is as destitute of remedy as the guilty, and the whole transaction is so guarded against discovery that if the officer should be disposed to carry off a bank bill"—
exactly the case I make here—
he may do it with impunity, since there is no man capable of proving either the taker or the thing taken.
In my submission the representatives of the Government have no right to suggest that this Clause is fantastic and unprecedented and unpractical when such a great authority has pointed out the necessity, in his view, for having some such provision in the law. It is entirely practical, because it has been in operation for some 40 years not only in India but in some other parts of the Empire where the Indian Criminal Procedure Code also runs. I submit that this new Clause could not conceivably do any harm and in all probability would do very great good, and that it is just the sort of thing which that great authority Lord Camden pointed out should be in any Bill conferring the power to enter the private houses of individuals. Our laws should be as free from such entries as it is possible for us to make them.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I beg to second the. Motion.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I support the proposed new Clause with a very great deal of pleasure on behalf of myself and my colleagues. We are discussing at a very early stage of these proceedings what is perhaps the heart of the Bill, and something which has aroused a great deal of fury in the country. If this Bill goes through in its present form, one thing that will be certain is that the old proverb that the Englishman's house is his castle will be dead and buried, and we shall have no further right to use it. The Mover of the Clause is asking for a very simple thing. If a man is to be subject to representatives of the law walking into his house, going to any part of it and examining what they like and taking what they like, the very least that can be done for the person who is so assailed is that he should have the right to claim that witnesses must be present to testify as to what has been taken by the officers.
The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that Lord Justice Camden, in that famous case somewhere about 1765, was very explicit on the point. It is not my business to read law, but during the recent discussions on this matter my education in that direction has been improved, because, like a good many other laymen, I have been reading the accounts of State trials in connection with this matter. The thing that has astounded me is that a Lord Chief Justice of this country in the 18th
century should have had a more acute sense of liberty than the present Government. One of the chief things to which he paid attention was the right of search and the conditions under which that right was used. Lord Justice Camden said words to the effect that if officers can walk in and take possession of your house, break locks, break open cabinets, read private letters and documents or anything else they like, and after doing so have the power to take those things away, and if something like that was to be the law in England a man had better live among savage people. I should not put it so strongly myself, but the least that we in the 20th century can do is to be extremely careful in regard to matters which affect the liberty of citizens.
The hon. Member made a point which I will underline, and that is that the person whose house is entered is not necessarily guilty; he has to be found guilty by a court. The strength of the objection to this Clause all the time has been that the most innocent person is just as likely to be the victim of an invasion of his home as the most guilty person. We hold that it is absolutely necessary, if a person whose house is searched is to have any protection at all, that there should be witnesses to take a note of the articles that are taken, and of the things that are found upon his premises. The House should remember that the search is not to be any kid-glove affair. An officer does not come and knock at the door and ask if he can search the house. The searchers simply walk in, and they do not ask if certain documents are there, but they search the whole place through from top to bottom to find incriminating documents. The persons who search the house are not limited to taking certain kinds of books or pamphlets, and they do not need to go only to the bookcases or to private boxes where leaflets and pamphlets may be kept; they have the power to search the most secret places in the house, to handle and read any documents they like and to carry away the most private documents of the persons who live in the house. During the discussion in Committee, the Attorney-General agreed to a number of Amendments which made some difference to the Bill, but he did not agree to anything which altered the vital and fundamental principles to which
objection has been taken. He accepted certain safeguards, but he did not accept any Amendment which made the slightest difference to the more fundamental side of the proposals. One of my hon. Friends says that the Attorney-General will do so to-day. I hope that the genial appearance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is indicative of what he is going to do when he comes to speak on this Clause.
The House and the Attorney-General should take note of the fact that the right of search is being granted for the first time, so far as political opinions are concerned. The Attorney-General may say that political opinions are not really involved, but that is the whole question which is in dispute. The right of search in matters of political opinion is being granted for the first time, and matters that have been held almost sacred in this country are being ridden over roughshod. The House must bear in mind that not only is the person whose house is searched innocent until he is proved guilty, but that after his house is invaded he has no means of redress or of compensation by way of a claim for damages. During the discussions in Committee, the Attorney-General rather slurred over that matter in a sort of attempt to say that the person whose house was invaded had some kind of right of compensation. So far as I can gather that is not so. It is certain that the average poor man or woman has not the wherewithal to claim damages. It does not matter what is done to their house or how much their property is damaged, how much of their property is taken away or however private that property may be; they have no redress once the property is taken away. It is asking very little that some person or persons should be present as witnesses as to what is taken in order to safeguard the person whose house, has been invaded and who, in the long run, may be proved innocent. We shall go into the Lobby in support of this new Clause if the Attorney-General does not see his way to accept it.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I support the new Clause for two reasons. The first is that it protects the citizen when a search is made of his house by providing someone to verify his statements as to what has been taken. The proposal of the Bill is a new feature in our civic life, and if the
Bill passes we should give all the protection we can to people who may be affected by it. The second reason is that if I were a member of the Government who are pressing forward this Bill, I would do all I could to protect the police officers. Everyone knows that when a police officer makes a statement in a court of law there is a certain amount of prejudice against him, because there is always a feeling that he is misrepresenting the real position. When he states in court what has been found in a house during a search, there is always a grave doubt as to whether his evidence is truthful. If he produces articles which he says he found in the house—

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Could he not produce the articles?

Mr. TINKER: There have been cases where articles have been produced in court, and it has been denied that they had ever been in the house. That is one of the reasons why I support the proposed new Clause. It will protect the police officer as well as the householder. I should have no hesitation in calling in two people. I do not say that they must be "respectable" citizens, because there are degrees of respectability. The word "citizen" covers all degrees of respectability, and I should be prepared to trust to getting two persons to suit the occasion. The point that I would urge upon the Government is that at least, if it is their intention to press forward this Measure, as I take it it is, nothing ought to prevent them from giving every possible protection to the two parties concerned. The police officer may not like his job; probably he will not like his job; but he will have to carry it out, knowing all the time the feeling of bitterness that the citizen will have against him, and I would like to see some protection provided for him by checking whatever he takes. The citizen also will desire to be protected by the knowledge that, whatever articles may be taken, at least it will be verified that they have been there and can be got back when the case is over. To my mind this is a perfectly fair Clause, and there ought to be no difficulty in accepting it in all quarters of the House. I do not know whether there will be any argument as to its causing a lot of trouble to bring in additional persons, or as to who will pay them, and so on, but on the face of it this proposal would provide protection
for the two parties concerned. To my mind it is worth accepting, and I shall certainly support it.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I hope that the Government will give this Amendment consideration. I have been very much impressed by the argument which has been put forward that it is not only necessary to safeguard the person whose premises may be searched against wrongdoing on the part of the police, but also to protect the police against the charge, which is frequently made in other countries, that they are acting under the influence of superiors, and that on some occasions, in order to obtain a conviction, articles can be "planted" where searches are to be made. I feel that it is very well worth while, in the interests of justice in this country, that every safeguard that is possible should be given against any suspicion of that kind growing up in people's minds. I see that the Home Secretary is here. I need hardly remind him that only a short time ago we were called upon in this House to pass legislation in order to carry out very sweeping reforms in the City of London Police, and that only a short time before that, during the time of Lord Byng—

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: The Metropolitan Police.

Mr. MOLSON: Quite right: I mean the Metropolitan Police. Only a short time before that, when Lord Byng was Commissioner, there were cases which resulted in convictions in the courts, and which showed that, in spite of the fact that, as we all know, the vast majority of the police are entirely to be relied upon, there had been occasions where police officers had been corrupted. Therefore, if it is possible in this Bill to provide a further safeguard, I hope that the Government will be prepared to do so. I understand that the attitude of the Attorney-General is that the Government must obtain the powers which this Bill will give them. Those of us who support the Government are quite willing to give them those powers, but we do ask that everything that can be done shall be done to make certain that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will not lay the way open to any abuse.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: In rising to support my hon. Friend's Amendment, I would ask
the Attorney-General to consider that the question here is not merely whether one is going to believe the word of the police officer or not, but something very much more important, which in my view justifies my hon. Friends and myself in asking for an Amendment of this description. In normal circumstances a search in itself is confusing, but in circumstances of this nature, when you get police officers searching for something with the nature of which they are not conversant, and looking through all sorts of papers trying to find some kind of evidence to indicate that the person whose house they are searching is in possession of certain kinds of documents, it is quite conceivable that, in the confusion which will arise, the police officer himself, quite honestly and without any intent to deceive anybody at all, may not form an accurate opinion of what has happened, and consequently, when called upon to give evidence, may give evidence of a strictly correct nature as far as he is concerned, as I believe it would be in the majority of cases, but yet at the same time may not be in a position to give coherent evidence as to what took place at the time when the search was made.
This is a very important departure. I do not think that any Member of the House will disregard the importance of the departure in respect of the granting of search warrants, and there is a tremendous amount of feeling throughout the country; it is no use anyone denying it. From the point of view of the argument of those who are supporting the Bill, let us say that it is unjustified, but that feeling does prevail, and in this case it is not only necessary to do justice if the Bill is to be placed on the Statute Book, but it is necessary to appear to be doing justice in the fullest sense of the word. Consequently, I think that, if those right hon. Gentlemen who will deal with the legal aspect of the matter will look at it from its proper angle, they will agree that every protection should be afforded, if the Bill be passed—many of us here hope that the Government will abandon it after they have heard the arguments, and I am sure there will be many arguments in that direction—for the sake of those good citizens who are upset about the matter.
There is a tremendous number of good citizens who are anxious to see that jus
tice is done—for the sake of argument I will speak of "good citizens," so that there may be no difference of opinion as between those who are opposing this Measure and those who desire to further it—and those good citizens are disturbed. Here is an opportunity for the granting of a concession which will at least enable people to be satisfied that, when a search takes place, independent persons will be present who will have an opportunity of saying something about how the search was conducted. Moreover, it would make those who are conducting the search more cautious about removing certain property which they have the power to remove at the present time. For example, they may take letters without knowing whether the contents of those letters justify their being taken or not. They may say that they have reasonable cause to believe that in certain letters words were used which might be an incitement, but, if someone else were present, they would look at those letters and would be more cautious not to remove anything which was not either directly or indirectly conducive to this type of agitation among the Forces.
The police do not take any objection to this. For example, when persons are present at an identification parade there is no question of casting a slur upon them. My right hon. Friend knows very well that, when there is a question of identification, citizens can be asked to come forward, and they do so on many occasions; and not only are they present, but they subject themselves to the somewhat crude performance of having various types of headgear and so on placed upon them, and being put in a row with the person against whose liberty some step may be taken. Nobody objects to that. The police do not object to it; the citizens do not object to it; they think it perfectly right that a man, before his liberty is interfered with, should have the opportunity of independent people being present and the right to every protection, so that no mistake shall be made. Apart from the arguments which have been brought forward by my hon. Friend, I think the Government will appreciate that, if they can see their way to make a concession in this regard, people will at least believe that everybody is going to have a fair opportunity in the matter, and that the police will not be tempted to deal unceremoni-
ously with packages and articles which have no possible connection with anything in the nature of sedition or the spread of dissension, but that such things will, as in the past, be honoured by not being removed; and the citizen will be able to realise that the search will be conducted under the supervision of independent persons, and to have the satisfaction of knowing that any evidence which is tendered at a later stage in regard to the search is not only reliable in the sense that it represents the truthful opinion of the person giving it, but in the sense that it represents the actual facts of what took place. I would ask, therefore, that this Amendment should be made in the Bill.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: In supporting this Amendment, I must confess that I gathered from the earlier discussions in connection with the Bill—I was not a member of the Committee—that the Government were determined to withdraw the Bill from the House altogether, and I am sorry that they have not done so rather than attempt, as some speakers have said, to make the Bill presentable and satisfactory to the general community. I do not think that, whatever form the Bill make take, it will ever be satisfactory to any reasonable, intelligent and progressive man or woman in this country.
I do not care whether a man is regarded as respectable or not. I think that all are entitled to the utmost consideration from the State, and, if a person is regarded as not being respectable, there is all the greater necessity for seeing that there is no loophole for justice not being done to that person. On the question of search, I think it is highly desirable that a complete inventory of any things that are taken by the officers of the law in the execution of their duty should be taken in the presence of two citizens—I do not go the length of saying "two respectable citizens," because there might be a difference of opinion in this House as to who were the respectable citizens. I am sure that very often respectability is simply a question of not being found out. I noticed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace) was lecturing his division recently, and was describing Members of this House. He described the Clyde group. He had some hard things to say
about me, and I do not think he would believe that I was a respectable citizen who ought to be entrusted with the task of taking an inventory of that kind.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: If I may interrupt the hon. Member for a moment, I pointed out, in what he has dignified with the title of a lecture, that there was no one in the House who was more assiduous in his attendance to his Parliamentary duties than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN: He said I had attained a notoriety which most Members of the House would desire to avoid. He also said that the only thing that distinguished me from my two colleagues was that I was more careful about my personal appearance than the other two. But that by the way. I desire to associate myself with the protests that have been made and to support the Amendment. I might be one of those who will come within the scope of the Bill, because I assume that revolutionary agitators are the people aimed at, though I seldom take part in written work. But I have documents in my house which I should not like officers of the Crown to examine or to take away. There is one letter especially dear to me that I received in 1930 from the Prime Minister commending me to the electors of Shettleston. In that letter he gave me a very fine character. It might be given in evidence in my defence when the time came. He also spoke, in that vague way in which he generally speaks, like a sort of Mr. Facing-Both-Ways, of the great Socialist plans that they had in store. I value that document and should not like to lose it, because the Prime Minister is the only person who has given me a very fine character in the whole of my life. The document is certainly valuable to me and at some future stage in the history of the country it might fetch a high price.
It is the duty of the Attorney-General not only to present the case for this Bill but to show reason and justification for the action that is proposed in it. I have read carefully the declarations of right hon. Gentlemen and supporters of the Government, but I have never yet seen a case made out which could be taken as a reasonable defence of the Measure at all. The Government seem to me to be aiming at keeping power rather by force than by reason, and I fail to understand
why the soldier or sailor should not have the case presented to him and should not get to know the truth of certain actions that he is asked to engage in. We are asking that in the search there should be witnesses present. Documents can go astray. I have regularly attended the courts in Glasgow, because I have. found it an interesting study both of criminals and of procedure, and from time to fine I have heard of documents being misplaced or lost in transit. There ought to be a complete inventory of documents, and the officers ought to be responsible for every letter seized. According to the statements of the Attorney-General, there will be no redress for any damage that may be done in the house. An innocent person's house may be searched from cellar to attic. Everything in the place may be examined, every article displaced and damage may be done, children may be taken out of their beds and the beds ripped open in the search for documents, because very often searches of that character are made in a clumsy and sometimes a ruthless way. I saw two searches carried out in Glasgow, and I certainly should not like my family to be subjected to the terror to which these families were subjected.

Mr. RADFORD: What were they searching for?

Mr. McGOVERN: They were searching for stolen goods, but even in searching the house of a criminal there should be the utmost consideration for the innocent victims, the family and the children, who may be ignorant of and are generally antagonistic to the criminal activities of the father.

Mr. RADFORD: I ask only because I gathered that the hon. Member and others claim that the right of search is something entirely new, whereas it has been quite common in the case of obscene literature and other cases.

Mr. McGOVERN: I do not think anyone has ever claimed that it is new to search a house, but this is certainly a startling departure from previous practice. It is giving power to a small minority which, in my estimation, no Government ought to possess. You ought to be able to prove that a person has in his possession things that he ought not
to have, or that he has criminal intentions, before you proceed to his house. You take power to go to the house on the word of one or two individuals who may be biassed and stupid, and nothing may be discovered. This is such a startling departure that I am satisfied that the citizens generally, independent of political outlook, would resent power of this kind being placed in the hands of the Government. This is not an isolated case. Step by step there is a growing machinery of Fascism, not going through terroristic methods as in Germany, but the Government and the ruling classes, taking time by the forelock, are taking powers that they have not previously had, so that when the moment comes they may be able to close down the democratic institutions of the country. I could go back to the time when the Government came into power and show how step by step this is leading to a complete state of Fascism by bringing machinery into operation which will ultimately take powers out of the hands of local and national assemblies and place them in the hands of a small dictatorial few.
This power of search is an abominable thing to come from the man who is the nominal leader of the Government, who himself has been pursued ruthlessly because of his declarations and his penned articles in the past. In view of the revelations in connection with the late War, it would be a good thing if appeals were made to soldiers to mutiny and to refuse to carry out orders, because on my reading of the memoirs of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) I can only assume that the people who led the youth of the country during the War were guilty of colossal incompetence and almost criminal tendencies because of the loss of life during that War, when we had over 400,000 men needlessly sucked into bogs and quagmires, false information was given to the Government of the day and faked documents of every kind were presented. Instead of the boot being on the foot of the person who incites the soldier, it ought to be on the foot of the person responsible for these criminal acts and, instead of monetary grants and titles, some of these people should have had the High Court and the firing squad. While I reserve the right to present a true case to soldiers, sailors and airmen by the written or spoken word—

Mr. HOWARD: Why does not the hon. Member go to the electors in order to get his political opinion supported? Why not rely upon the ballot box?

Mr. McGOVERN: The hon. Member surely realises that the soldier is still an elector. I do not see why the "Daily Mail" and National Government broadcasting should be indulged in and the soldier should be able to hear those opinions and not hear the appeals of Socialists or Communists who desire a different state of society. To me this is an obnoxious measure in every Clause. If I were a Tory, I should be against it, because it is simply sounding the death-knell of the present Government among intelligent electors. It shows that they have no faith in reasoned appeal, that they are afraid of the soldier, sailor or air-man getting to know the truth, afraid of his getting to know why he is asked to engage in industrial disputes and why he is asked to take part in war. Documents may be circulated telling him the truth, and the ruling class must use dictatorial power in order to suppress that information. The Attorney - General, as the representative of the Government, cannot stand at that Box and put up a reasoned case for the Bill. He would simply say, if he were honest, that he was afraid that if an appeal were made and the soldier knew the truth he would refuse to carry out the orders given to him by the ruling classes in 99 cases out of 100. I stand not only for the protection of the person in the home, but for the protection of innocent victims. The Government ought to accept the Clause, if they intend to go on with the Bill, and guarantee to the individual who might be facing a term of imprisonment the utmost protection the State could give to see that in so far as its laws are concerned, no injustice is done.

5.16 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I hope that I may have the general approval of the House if I confine my remarks rather more closely to the subject matter of the new Clause than did the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) in the speech to which we have just listened. Everyone agrees that it is desirable that searches by the police under this Bill when it becomes an Act, or under any of the other existing Acts, should be conducted
reasonably and properly. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will agree that anyone will be performing a public duty in bringing to the attention of this House any case where, in conducting a search, there has been aggressive, unreasonable or unfair action. It is deplorable if, as the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) suggested—and it is an anxiety with which I would like to associate myself—there are people with so little respect as to be capable of making unjustified accusations against the police as to what may or may not have taken place at a search.
I wish to deal with the Clause which, I can assure the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) and other hon. Members, has had my sympathetic consideration, and I wish to give my reasons to the House why the Clause cannot be accepted and why it is not a good one. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu), in moving the Clause, referred to certain epithets which I used and applied to a different proposal which he moved upstairs, and seemed to. think that he was called upon to do so by saying that this proposal was contained in the Indian penal code. He went on to show that the proposals in the Indian penal code are different in that they contained a provision, not in his new Clause, which is necessary to make it work. The Clause on the Paper is obviously unworkable, as my hon. Friend admitted. Before making a, search under the Act, the person making it shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants. Anyone can call upon two or more respectable inhabitants, but suppose they will not come? I think the House will remember a passage in one of Shakespeare's plays, where Owen Glendower says:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep," and Hotspur replies:
Why, so can I; or so can any man:
But will they come, when you do call for them?
We are entitled to apply the same principle to my hon. Friend's respectable inhabitants. The new Clause says that two or more respectable inhabitants shall be called upon to take part in the search, but it makes no provision for their being compelled to do so. Therefore, if the thing was to be workable there would have to be some subsequent provision.

Mr. ATTLEE: How do they get over that difficulty when it is a question of identification parades?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It works because people are willing to come. [An HoN. MEMBER: "Say it again."] I will say it as many times as hon. Members like. This is to be a condition of the exercise of the legal powers of search. If people do not go on identity parade, the law does not break down. You can have your evidence apart from the identity parade.

Mr. JANNER: Will any difficulty be experienced with regard to getting citizens to come?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No one has yet tried, but I should think that it would be exceedingly difficult, and a matter of the utmost repugnance to ordinary citizens of this country to be compelled to go into the house of someone in their locality and assist at a police search. I know that our dislike of unnecessarily prying into other people's affairs would make this duty one which would be very repugnant, and one very much out of accord with our legal system. It may be that in India such machinery works. Indian life and village responsibility, we all know, are very different, and it may be that there is something in Indian social life which makes it acceptable. We, after all, have to deal with our own people in this country, and I cannot imagine anything more repugnant to ordinary people than being asked to leave their ordinary vocations, jobs or business in order to take part in this matter.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The hon. and learned Gentleman said just now, "If these two witnesses or residents were called upon to assist in the search," but if the two witnesses are called upon to see that there is fair play for the persons searched—and that is all that is suggested here; not to assist, but to see that there is fair play—can he then state that that would be an odious duty which the older citizen should not be called upon to discharge?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They have to be present and sign a list drawn up by the person making the search, and I should think that that would be a very repugnant duty. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about serving on a jury?"] I
have yet to learn that serving on a jury is an objectionable form of service. Surely a jury is empowered to sit in a judicial capacity under one of the ancient institutions of our country and to assist the Court in performing a necessary if unpleasant duty. There is necessity for asking a further question. It does not seem to us desirable in the interests of the person whose premises may be searched that two inhabitants of the locality should have the opportunity of seeing his premises searched: It may be that one may have to be searched, if one has either committed a crime or is in suspicious circumstances—a search by the recognised authorities of the police. If they do anything wrong, their act can be challenged in the ordinary way in this House or elsewhere. It surely comes down to the point of view of the person whose premises are searched, that two of his neighbours should be there seeing his papers, seeing his house, according to the description, turned upside down, and seeing what he has got on his premises. There is the further point. Suppose something comes to light of a private character unconnected with the offence alleged. If there is any improper disclosure of anything of that kind by a police officer, it can be raised and dealt with by ordinary disciplinary methods. There can be no control over respectable inhabitants, who will have a complete view of all documents and articles on the premises during the course of the search.
For various reasons, we do not think that the idea embodied in the proposed new Clause is a good one. We sympathise, as everyone must, with the desire that searches, whether they take place under this Act or under any other Act, should be properly conducted. There may be arguments which may be relevant at later stages as to whether this Bill does or does not deal with political opinions, but I will leave that out for the moment. I do not think that it could be suggested that there is any reason why the police conducting searches under this Bill would be any more likely to act in an oppressive or unreasonable way than under any other of the Acts under which power of search is given to the police. I do not say that complaints as to the exercise of that power are nonexistent, but I think that complaints are negligible. The proper place in
which to have them brought up is in this House, and the very adequate safeguard which has worked in the past shows that these searches should be properly and fairly conducted to give the minimum of dislocation and upheaval. Strong feeling exists in every party in this House that in so far as the Executive acts, it should not be overstrained or used in any oppressive way. For those reasons we think that the idea embodied in the Clause will be unworkable. The form is bad, and we believe that the proper safeguard for the object the Clause has at heart does not lie in any special machinery of the kind.

Miss RATH BONE: Would it, not meet the difficulties the hon. and learned Gentleman has brought forward if, instead of two citizens of the locality, a magistrate were asked to assist at the search? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give at least some assurance to the Movers of the Clause that he will consider the matter in that sense?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That matter was discussed upstairs, but it is not before the House now. This is a police matter. They have to do it, and they have to bear the responsibility. They should do it. I will add what I intended to say on this Clause and which, I think, is relevant, at any rate, as to the general question raised by speakers in this Debate, that we intend to accept an Amendment which stands later on the Order Paper, on page 1904, Clause 2, page 2, line 20, which provides that if a search is to be conducted in the absence of the occupier it shall be the duty of the police to give him notice that the search has taken place.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I should like to ask whether the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General will not give further consideration to this matter. I did not gather from the Solicitor-General's reply that he objects to the general claim that is made as embodied in our Clause. I think that he sees the danger. At any rate, he will appreciate that it is a danger that has been spoken of by those who have held the highest position in the legal history of this country. A danger that was apparent to Lord Camden is a danger, I am sure, that will not have escaped the mind of the Solicitor-
General. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not met the suggestion that these dangers were pointed out in times of high controversy and in the history of a most famous discussion that took place in the, latter part of that century.
I should like to know whether my hon. Friend on my left was right in putting Lord Camden in this connection in association with the proposed Clause. If so, the case has not been met. If Lord Camden, who held high office at a time of great importance in our history, made that statement, then that case has not been met by the Solicitor-General in his reply. I understand that his case is that whatever may be said for the Clause, it is unworkable. In that case, is it riot his business to try to make it workable? We heard yesterday from the Prime Minister that concession after concession had been made by the Attorney - General in a desire to meet the very urgent objections that have been made in the House and throughout the country. If there were that desire then to meet, criticism, why has it not been shown to-day? Are we to understand from the Front Bench that there is something wrong in the principle now submitted? If so, let -them say so. That has not been suggested in the course of the speech of the Solicitor-General. All that we have been told is that the proposal is unworkable.
Why has not more attention been paid to the suggestion made by the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone)? What is the objection to a magistrate coming in if two or three respectable householders in the district are not to be asked? It was hardly a worthy argument on the part of the learned Solicitor-General that the magistrate is engaged in judicial duties. The magistrate is engaged very often in administrative duties. Three parts of his time and activities are concerned with administrative rather than judicial duties. He is -called in for a multitude of things relating to the ordinary affairs of every-clay life. Why cannot he come in, or why cannot someone holding some such position come in to see that the procedure which everybody looks upon as being a most regrettable necessity, a thing that is abhorrent to our general conception of social life in this country, is properly carried out? Why cannot some provision of that kind be made? It
is not unworkable. If it were unworkable, then we submit that, with all the resources at their disposal, the Government, if they desire to secure this extra protection, could make the scheme workable.
The Solicitor-General said that we need not trouble about the Clause, and that if anything is done wrong the matter can be brought up in this House. Is the time of this House to be occupied with such cases? It may be that the hon. Member who represents the locality may take a view quite contrary to the position occupied by the man whose house is searched. Let us suppose that there is some awkward man, some unpopular man whose house has been searched. He may be a man of extreme opinions. It is the man of extreme and awkward opinions that we have to defend. A man who brought the greatest amount of force to bear upon English politics said that in times of high controversy it is the obnoxious man, the suspected man who needs the protection of the law. You do not need the law to protect the respectable men, because generally they have all the other resources of society around them. You have to have a law which protects the man who is obnoxious and suspected in his district. When a man who has angered everybody, including all the respectable classes in his town, by his extreme speech, is called upon to go through this experience, it may be very difficult for his Member of Parliament, holding an entirely different view, to sympathise with him to the extent of raising the matter in this House.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Does the hon. Member suggest that a man because of his speech may have his house searched? That is not in the Bill. The Bill says:
If two justices of the peace are satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground of suspecting that an offence under this Act has been committeed,
they may grant a search warrant, but not for what the man has said.

Mr. FOOT: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I do not suggest that there could be any search warrant consequent upon a man making an extreme speech. What I said was that a man might be given to extreme speech and to putting an unpopular view, and as such
might make himself unpopular; just the sort of man that his Member of Parliament might not be very anxious to help.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: That would not constitute anything that would permit of his house being searched.

Mr. FOOT: We are discussing this Bill upon the basis that a search will take place in the circumstances that are described in the Bill.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Yes, in the Bill.

Mr. FOOT: I think that what I said was clear to the House. I do not want to confuse the issue. Is the Front Bench satisfied that there is adequate protection for the man who has been improperly treated or unfairly dealt with in relation to a search of his house, in that he may have the matter raised on the Floor of this House? The man may not know what measures he ought to take in that respect. That means depending upon the chance of getting support. The protection ought to be in the Measure itself. It is suggested by the Solicitor-General that the two members of the public would not be inclined to help, that they might be called upon but, like "spirits from the vasty deep," they might not come when called.
We are not making a proposal that is something new in history. It is a proposal which is being experienced in other countries, and if it acts there, why cannot it be done here? Is it not fair to assume that when two members of the community are called upon to see that fair play is done to one in their district they are likely to come in? If two householders were asked by the police to assist them in the objectionable course of searching a man's house, they would, and probably most of us would, stay outside. I should not be anxious to respond to any such call, but if it were put to two householders that they should come in and see fair play done to a man, and they came in with full authority as representatives of the public, there would not be that reluctance that is feared by the Solicitor-General. If he is satisfied that we could not satisfactorily work, such a provision, then it is his business, if he thinks that we are dealing with a substantial point, to suggest in what way the machinery can be improved.
Hon. and right hon. Members on the Front Bench must realise that the objection in relation to search is an objection that is in the very bones of the English people. It goes back to times from the controversies of which have sprung many of the liberties that we enjoy to-day. Air. Gladstone on one occasion said that we had to look upon John Wilkes as the great champion of English liberty, although he was not himself a very delightful personality. He was, however, a man who stood for English liberties, and the controversies that rang about his name are associated with some of the liberties that we enjoy to-day. The hatred of search is an essential English hatred. It is something that is part of our history, and if the Government intend to establish these methods of search, then they ought to be done in circumstances that will rob the procedure of the objection that most people feel to it.
We have not made an obstructive proposal. We have made a suggestion which was discussed upstairs. I believe the general proposal was dismissed upstairs as being impracticable. It is a fair answer to say that what we suggest has worked in different parts of the world, and we feel that our case might better have been met by some suggestion to make workable what may be difficult. If that had been done, it would have been more in line with the claim that the Prime Minister made at the luncheon festival yesterday. Why should that atmosphere disappear as soon as the Trocadero company dispersed? Let us have that atmosphere to-day. If the Clause had been accepted there would have been a chance of the Government getting their Bill through without high feeling.

5.43 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no high feeling on this side of the House. We shall try to meet the various Amendments with argument and reason, and if we cannot be so happy as to convince hon. Members opposite, it will be our misfortune. We think that we have very good reasons and we shall advance them, I hope, without any heat. The hon. Member has said that the objection to the search warrant Clause is in the very bone and blood of himself and his party. [HON. MEMBERS:
"Of the English people!"] Of the English people. May I say that in Clause 25 of the Betting and Lotteries Bill there is a search warrant Clause which has the same effect as the one in this Bill? I did not observe the hon. Member expressing his indignation on the Second Reading of that Bill against that particular Clause. I have observed that the hon. Member and Members of his party have allowed some two months to pass without putting down any Amendment to Clause 25. I do not know why it is so much more dangerous to search a man's house for documents which show that he intends to seduce the members of His Majesty's Forces from their loyalty than it is to search a man's house for a football betting slip. Let us consider this question without any mock heroics. The hon. Member says that this proposal is the same as that which was suggested in Committee. I must point out to him that he is at fault, and his hon. and learned colleague is also in error.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I never made any such statement. I was not a Member of the Committee. I understood that the matter was discussed upstairs.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, but I understood him to say that this matter, meaning substantially the same proposal, was discussed upstairs. That is the point I want to make, and I will submit it to the House so that hon. Members will be able to judge whether the statement was well founded, because the hon. Member has taunted the Government with saying that the proposed new Clause is unworkable and has suggested that it is the duty of the Government to make it workable. I am entitled to say, I think, that the people who have put forward this Clause cannot taunt the Government with not doing their work for them. The proposal which they put before the Committee upstairs was quite different in substance, although it dealt with the same point. Their proposal upstairs was that the magistrate or justice of the peace signing a warrant should appoint somebody as the representative of the person whose house was to be searched. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) has told us that his idea was that these two respectable inhabitants of the locality should be selected neither as representing
the police nor as representing the person whose house was to be searched, but as independent persons to see that everything was in order.
His proposal to-day is not the proposal which was before the Committee. Anybody can see that the proposal that a magistrate should appoint a sort of representative of the person whose house is to be searched is quite different from a proposal to bring in two independent persons to see that fair play is done, as arbiters between the police and the other person. That is the proposal now put forward. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) says that it is the duty of the Government to put it into shape. I do not take that view of the Government's duty. If we think that a particular mischief exists, it is no doubt the Government's duty to try to meet the mischief, but I do not agree that there is any mischief to be met. And I will say why. It is easy to suggest, rather vaguely and without any particular evidence, that the police are not to be trusted in these matters—

Mr. MALLALIEU: I did not suggest any such thing. I was particular to say that other persons might suggest that the police were not to be trusted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am glad to hear the disavowal of the hon. Member that there is no aspersion at all on the police.

Mr. MAXTON: I made it upstairs, and I repeat it now.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then once more we have a division in the forces of progress.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: And there is some division on the other side of the House on India.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Colne Valley thinks that the police are to be trusted, but the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) does not think they are to be trusted. Let me take the hon. Member for Bridgeton first. I suppose he is supporting this proposal, as is also the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). The proposal is that the police, who, according to their hypothesis, are not to be trusted, who are thoroughly dishonest and who might plant some documents on a person
whose house is to be searched, should be required by the Bill to take two respectable persons from the locality in order to see that they do their duty properly. Is it suggested that the police who are such evilly intentioned persons, so dishonest, will go out of their way to choose two thoroughly honest persons to go with them? If the police are so wicked and deliberately dishonest, the Clause is no protection. They would take good care to choose two persons who are what I may describe as creatures of the police, if they are so dishonest as is suggested.

Mr. MAXTON: My accusation was not about the dishonesty of the police, although I have seen cases in regard to that; my accusation was as to their competence in matters of this description.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am glad that I misunderstood the hon. Member. I think he did suggest dishonesty, but I am glad to find that he only suggests incompetence.

Mr. MAXTON: They cannot be trusted on a job of this sort.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the suggestion is that the police are only likely to be incompetent, then there is more likelihood of their not making the search as thorough as it would otherwise have been made, and I do not see the necessity, therefore, for bringing in the two respectable members of the locality. Let me take the hypothesis that the police are to be trusted and are thoroughly honest. Is it really the intention to bring in these witnesses in order to protect the police? Is that really the intention of the hon. Member? Will he lay his hand upon his heart and say that that was his motive in bringing forward the Amendment?

Mr. MALLALIEU: I said that it was one of my intentions.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The sort of extra reason Which might make it look more acceptable to the Government. I can assure the hon. Member that the police and those responsible for the police do not require this protection. Is it necessary for the protection of the public? The Government are going to accept an Amendment as to providing a list. I take the view that it is impossible to devise an Amendment—and the efforts of the Liberal party show that it is impossible
—to give any further protection than that which the population of this country has hitherto enjoyed when the police are discharging their public duties. The police are not the enemies of the State. The police are not people who cannot be trusted to act fairly in the discharge of their duties, and there is no necessity at all for the protection of the public to bring in independent persons or somebody to be appointed by a magistrate to help them to discharge their duties. You are just as likely to have two respectable persons who are wicked and incompetent—

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Why have any warrant at all?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The mason for the warrant is to give proper legality and formality to these actions which without the warrant would be as unauthorised as that of the late Lord 'Halifax in the famous case of Entick v. Carrington. Taking the view that there is no necessity to protect the citizen any further than the protection he already has from the police, who in general carry out duties given them by officers of the law, I do not see the necessity for the Clause. That being so, it is not part of my duty to do the work which the Liberal party has not been able to do for two months; that is, to make the proposed Clause workable. These words are lifted out of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code. The hon. Member for Colne Valley has seen the difficulties of embodying all the words of that code, because they would be most objectionable, and he has not had the courage to include them in his Clause.

Mr. MALLALIEU: The Clause was put down some months ago, and I had an opportunity of seeing an old copy of the Statute in the Library. Since then I have had an opportunity of seeing a revised edition, and I find that not only did it contain all that I wished, but also an additional point, which completely meets one of the criticisms made by the Solicitor- General.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Indian Criminal Procedure Code has some machinery in it which would have made the proposal workable, but the hon. Member has not put it in his Clause, because the House would not accept it for a moment.

Mr. MALLALIEU: Would the Attorney-General accept the proposal if it contained the full Section as it is now in the Indian Penal Code?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: I certainly would not, and I should be very much surprised if the hon. Member had the courage to move such a proposal. The hon. Member referred to the case of Entick v. Carrington. I wish the hon. Member would study the long passages of Lord Chief Justice Pratt's judgment in that case. He was dealing with a case where a Secretary of State, like the the Home Secretary, not a. magistrate or a justice of the peace, gave a warrant for search for anything, not for particular documents in particular premises, but a search for anything. And Lord Chief Justice Pratt's observations were directed to the tyrannical abuse of the powers claimed by the Secretary of State. That is altogether a different matter to that which is to be done by a magistrate or, as I propose, by accepting an amendment, by a judge granting a warrant. Although I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Member for Bodmin, I hope the House will see that the taunt that the Government ought to make this proposal workable is undeserved, and that we may have the same confidence which he and his party have in the competence of the police.

5.59 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I want to refer to the point as to the unworkability of the proposed new Clause—the criticism put forward by the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General. It so happens that it was my duty for a period of 20 years as a magistrate and judge to have to administer these specific words; I think they are the actual words in the old criminal procedure code, and we did not find any difficulty in administration. I am, therefore, rather at a loss to understand why the Government should so strongly stress the point that the Clause is unworkable. I think that the very good reasons which led the legislature to embody a similar provision in the Indian Criminal Procedure Code should apply equally in this country. This Clause was put in for the protection of the individual and for the protection of the police. One knows quite well that the procedure in Oriental countries is somewhat different from that in our own country. There-
fore, perhaps it is more necessary that a provision should be inserted so that the duties imposed on the police are carried out without unfairness or harshness to the individual, and, on the other hand, so that it is not possible for an individual in whose possession matter may be found, to bring unfair and unjustified charges against the police.
If this Clause were accepted, it would go a long way to remove the opposition to the Bill both inside and outside the House. The general feeling of opposition that has been aroused against the Bill is due to fear that the liberty of the subject may be invaded in a way that has been guarded against in the past. Any provision that can be added to the Bill to assure the public both that the liberty of the individual will be guarded and that it will be impossible, as far as it can be made impossible, for false charges to be brought against an individual, or for any man to bring false charges against the police, would remove a great deal of the objections to the Bill. I think that the reasons put forward by the Government, that the Clause is unworkable, are not the real reasons on which they base their objections to it. They say, too, that the new Clause is unnecessary. It is perfectly true that similar provisions are not included in other powers of search under other Acts, but seeing the nature of this Bill and the serious consequences that may he entailed by charges brought under it, it is incumbent on the Government to take every step that will ensure that public mistrust of the provisions of the Bill is allayed.

6.3 p.m.

Major MILNER: Let me recall to the House the circumstances in which a warrant of this description would be executed. In the first place the warrant is to be issued on the justices being satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence has been committed. In the first place, therefore, the warrant is to be issued on suspicion.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: There must be information on oath.

Major MILNER: The warrant is to be issued on the justices being satisfied, from information on oath, that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an
offence has been committed. In the second place that warrant may be used by one officer or a number of officers of police at any time in the day or night, if necessary by force. That is to say, on premises that are temporarily or permanently unoccupied the door may be broken down and one or more police officers may enter into possession, may remain there an hour or two or the whole day or whole night, and may search the premises, and if there be persons there they may search those persons also. They may seize on the premises anything which they have reasonable ground for suspecting to be evidence of the commission of an offence. When a warrant may be executed in circumstances such as those, surely there is some justification for asking that rather special precautions should be taken for the protection of the house and its occupier or owner, the protection of the persons or person owning the articles therein, and for the protection of the police officers who are taking part in what in effect is a raid or search of this kind.
One minor point I would mention. It seems to be suggested, and not least by the learned Attorney - General, that having regard to the undoubted high character of the police, it is not likely that anything would be taken away which ought not to be taken, or that anything would be put into the house which ought not to be put there. The learned Attorney-General said in Committee that he did not encourage agents provocateurs in this country; but he said at another time that he himself had had occasion to send such an agent to obtain a copy of what was alleged to be, or thought to be, an obscene publication. If the Attorney - General found it necessary to use such an agent it is not outside the bounds of possibility that in times of difficulty or stress, in circumstances such as I have outlined, some action of that sort might be taken.
It is only reasonable for the protection of those whom I have mentioned that some special precaution should be taken. The Government say that it is impracticable to take such steps as are suggested in the new Clause. They say that respectable persons would not be willing to assist in a matter of this sort. I disagree entirely with that point of view. There are many much more disagreeable functions which the public now under-
take. There is the function undertaken on request or on summons, of sitting as a jury at an inquest and having the unpleasant duty of viewing the body. I can conceive that many might take objection to that; but I cannot conceive that any reasonably minded citizen, if requested by the police to come along and see fair play, to watch that no undue damage was done, would object to assist in that way. The learned Solicitor-General seemed to think it much more likely that people might be willing to assist in India than in this country. In fact the contrary is the case. In India one knows how the susceptibilities of the Indians may be affected, and one knows particularly the custom of purdah and so on, and the high regard in which Indians hold their women and the objection they have to the entry of strangers into a house. I submit that the Clause would be perfectly practicable in this country; and, secondly, that it has been found practicable in another country. There would not be the slightest difficulty in carrying into effect such a Clause as this when the time came.
Then the Solicitor-General suggested that the Clause was highly undesirable because private affairs might come to light and be seen by witnesses. But it is not necessary to ask witnesses to go into the precise details of the contents of letters or documents. It would be necessary only for them to know that a bundle of documents or letters had been appropriated and taken away by the police. It is not in the least likely that such private affairs would come to life.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: May I interrupt?

Major MILNER: ; I sat in Committee with the hon. and gallant Gentleman for many days, and there were few occasions on which he did not bark into my ear. I shall be grateful to him, therefore, if he will let me proceed without further interruption. My point is this: It would be the duty of the police if they did find evidence of the commission of any offence, or any evidence having any relation to disaffection, to take note of that fact, to take advantage of that evidence and to prosecute the individual in question. Therefore there is some inducement, if evidence cannot be found of an offence under this Bill, to plant or place evidence in regard to
some other minor or greater offence. In my submission this Clause would be a great protection to all concerned. It would be a protection to the general public, it would be some reassurance to them, having in mind the great anxiety which this Bill has caused, and it would be a source of comfort to the police taking part in an objectionable proceeding such as this. The Lord Chief Justice some time ago said, in effect, that it was not only necessary that justice should be done but that it should be apparent to the world that justice had been done. One of the ways in which, in a matter of this sort, it might be made apparent that proceedings had been carried out with fairness and justice, would be the presence of two respectable citizens. I still hope that the Government may see fit to accept the Clause.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: Those who support the Bill have endeavoured this afternoon to show that the proposal in the proposed New Clause is not practicable while those supporting the Clause have been at pains to show that, in their view, it is practicable. I do not think that we need greatly concern ourselves as to which of these views is correct and for this reason. There is, it seems to me, a short and complete answer to the case made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) and those who have supported the Clause. It is that the proposal is, in the first place, unnecessary and in the second place, would be ineffective. As to it being unnecessary, it is significant that not one of those who have spoken in support of it, directed attention to the fact that Parliament has already passed more than 50 Acts dealing with the right of search in various ways, and in none of those Acts has Parliament thought it necessary or fit to insert such a provision as this. Further, although no such provision has been inserted in any of these 50 or more Acts, no supporter of this proposal has been able to show that any evil consequence has arisen therefrom. That to any ordinary reasonable person should be a complete answer as to the necessity of this proposal.
As to it being ineffective, I thought as I listened to the hon. Member for Colne Valley that one of the principal purposes which he bad in mind in making the sug-
gestion was to prevent a corrupt police officer from planting a document or to prevent anyone from suspecting that an honest police officer had planted a document when he had not done so. If hon. Members consider for a moment the state of affairs which prevails when a search of this kind is being made, and the confusion which necessarily exists on such an occasion, they will not find it difficult to believe that if a, police officer wished to plant a document during such a search he would not be prevented from doing so by the presence of two witnesses. The Attorney-General has pointed out that a corrupt police officer would probably get two amenable witnesses. If in order to throw dust in the eyes of the world he appointed two undoubtedly honest and reputable witnesses, it would yet be perfectly easy for him to plant a document in the confusion of the search, even in the presence of these two reputable witnesses. That proceeding would have the further consequence that the fact of the planted document having been found on those premises would be certified by these two independent witnesses and this would make it additionally difficult for the man, in whose house we are supposing the document to have been planted to prove that such was the case. The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) went so far as to say that in his opinion the witnesses would only be expected to see and to testify to the fact that a bundle of papers or perhaps 20 or more letters had been taken from the premises. He said that in his opinion they would not be required even to read the documents. If it be the case that all the witnesses have to do is to certify that a bundle of papers has been taken away, what is there to prevent a document being put into the bundle after its removal? The more we examine the case the more abundant the evidence becomes that the proposal of the Clause is unnecessary, and that it would be ineffective in application.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The proposed new Clause has been met with a great deal of criticism, but those who have brought it forward or supported it this afternoon, have not attempted to make out that it is a cast-iron proposal, or that it is the best possible thing in the circumstances. The
House is discussing a Bill containing a certain proposal. The Opposition regard the whole Bill as obnoxious, and, as an Opposition always does, they are seeking to lessen as much as possible what they regard as obnoxious in it. That, is all they can do in the circumstances. The supporters of the Bill, on the other hand, are seeking to argue that something which in our view is wrong should be permitted to go on, just because the Opposition's proposal is not as good as they would like it to be. If we were discussing the whole proposal of the Bill, which would not be in order on this occasion, we would not seek to carry this proposal. We would seek to wipe out the Government's proposal in its entirety. But we are not faced with that issue now. We are faced with the question of whether or not there is any way of lessening the ill effect of what we regard as a wrong proposal in the Bill.
The Solicitor-General argued with great skill and plausibility against the Opposition's proposal. He said that in his view the bringing in of two citizens in addition to the police in cases of this kind would make things worse and that the police were under the control of this House and if they did wrong their actions could be challenged here. To that point, which the Solicitor-General put with great force and some skill, there are two answers. First there is the answer given by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) that a person who would be involved in a case of this kind would, generally speaking, be an unpopular person or, at any rate, a person holding unpopular views. I do not wish to belittle my colleagues here in this House or politicians in general. I do not agree with much of what we hear on the music-hall stage and what we read in certain places, about politicians being this or that or the other thing. I believe that politicians are normal people and being normal, we are faced with this position—that to raise an issue of this kind in the House, possibly on the eve of an election, might be to risk unpopularity. How often have all of us allowed things to go, knowing that to raise them here would be to court unpopularity in our own divisions, even though we believed that they were matters which ought to be raised here. Therefore, the first answer to the Solicitor-General is that, generally speaking, the kind of person who would be in-
volved in these cases, would very rarely find a politician prepared to raise his case for him in this House.
The second answer is this. The Solicitor-General says that the police are under the control of and can be challenged in this House. I take a different view. I see the learned Lord Advocate for Scotland on the Front Bench. I cannot claim any special knowledge of law, particularly of English law, but I think I have had as much experience as any Member here, and probably more experience than most, of correspondence with the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland on police and criminal matters. I suppose that in the course of the year I raise many more cases of appeals against the law than most hon. Members here. But the, answer which I get from the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate when I raise these cases is that the police are not our servants, that they are under the control of the magistrates of the city of Glasgow or wherever it may be, and that, if the police have done wrong, my job is to raise it, not here but with the local magistrates. Therefore, the point that the police are under the control of this House does not meet the case at all. I go further. Some time ago the Home Secretary was questioned regarding certain offences including offences concerning children and also motoring offences. The Home Secretary was asked what action he would take with the chief constables in regard to these matters, and he stated that the chief constables outside the Metropolitan area were not his servants and were not under his control and that all he could do was to make recommendations to them hoping that those recommendations would be carried into effect. That is the Home Secretary's statement, and yet the Solicitor-General now argues that the police are under the control of this House. The fact is, according to the Home Secretary's own statement, that the police outside the Metropolitan area are not our servants and are not subject to our control.
The Attorney-General has put forward another argument. I remember the late right hon. Gentleman who was formerly Member for Shettleston saying that the present Attorney-General was possibly one of the most capable debaters in the House, and this evening he has used his debating power to bring in the Betting
Bill in connection with this proposal. There are two simple answers to the point about the Betting Bill. Nobody took the Betting Bill seriously in Committee upstairs. I, personally, never went beyond the first Clause. Who is going to put down Amendments to a Bill upstairs, when the first Clause alone has taken about 10 days consideration in Committee, never mind the 25th Clause? We never got near that stage. If I thought that the 25th Clause was coming on the Amendments would have been put down all right, but as the Attorney-General knows in these days one does not draft Amendments to the 25th Clause of a Bill when scarcely more than the first line of the Bill has been considered in Committee.
The second answer on this point is that in the Betting Bill we are dealing with an entirely different thing and a thing raising no political issues. I am one of those who think that the police in regard to betting have very great powers, perhaps too great powers. But I would say that somehow or another—and I say it of His Majesty's judges as well—that in regard to certain crimes such as murder there is great fairness. I was present the other day in Glasgow at a murder trial in which some of my constituents were concerned, and I would say that never were men given a fairer trial in this or any other country. But there was no political issue involved. It is when religious or political issues are raised that we find the ordinary fairness which men show in regard to every other aspect beginning to evaporate. Sometimes, as is general in the North of Ireland, issues of that kind are not far away. When two things, politics and religion, enter, decent men who treat each other decently seem to lose their sense of decency, and when it comes to trusting the police in betting cases there is no fear, where there is no class issue and no hatred, although the betting people do not always admit their fairness even there. But even if they do wrong there, the consequences are not grave. One often declines to raise a matter in this House because the consequences are not very grave, but here the consequences are very grave. They are not merely imprisonment, but to certain men a loss of employment and of their whole standing in life, and so, when you compare it with a betting offence, the consequences here
are far greater and ought to be subject to greater scrutiny.
Now this Clause comes along, and may I say that I am sometimes a little irritated about the word "respectable" I must confess that respectability rather annoys me, because nearly everybody who is respectable usually uses his respectability to do wrong. The proposal in itself, although I dislike the word "respectable," has this to be said for it. It is said by those who oppose the Amendment that two citizens are given a trust. The Solicitor-General says you are giving citizens—and I like to say "citizens" without any affix—the power to enter, along with the police, and to see the private papers and documents of these folk. I am surprised at the Solicitor-General thinking that that is something awful. After all, we have accepted the principle of citizens, without an affix at all, having the right to decide and to involve themselves in far greater matters than this, or at least as great.
What is the reason for the two? The two are brought in by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) as a sort of jury. The men on a jury trial are allowed to decide the most awful issues of life and death, and all that the hon. Member is asking is that two citizens, men or women, should be allowed to act. The chances are that here and there two persons would be chosen who would refuse in any way to subject themselves to pressure or to being used for illegal purposes, and while we do not claim that the Clause is the best way, we are claiming that it gives to the person accused at least a chance that two persons of his own neighbourhood, two citizens like himself, would be there. I do not know if hon. Members have watched a betting raid. I have been in scores of raids, and the entrance of two civilians does give the person accused a sort of feeling that he is not without somebody, in a difficult time, who might render him some aid. I say to the Attorney - General and to those who support him that the Clause is calculated to lessen what to us is an objectionable thing. It is not what we should propose if we were introducing a Bill, but we seek to lessen an objectionable proposal, and we support the Amendment because we think that in the main the chances are that it will lessen what to us is an objectionable principle.

6.37 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: May I ask the House whether we should not come to a decision now? There will be other opportunities for making observations about search warrants, but I thought, on this particularly limited Clause, that after nearly two and a-half hours we might now have a Division.

Mr. LAWSON: May I point out that there are hon. Members on this side who have been sitting here, practically, since before four o'clock and who want to speak on this Clause?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not complain in the very least. I only suggested for the consideration of hon. Members opposite that we have had a very full Debate.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I would like to deal more particularly with the point that has been raised by the Attorney-General, who suggested that this proposed new Clause was based upon a belief in the potential dishonesty of the police, and that our greatest safeguard against abuses in the country lay in the fact that we have a police force that is above suspicion. I have never heard a more astonishing defence for the language of a Bill. You do not refuse to appoint an auditor because a secretary is honest. You appoint an auditor because the secretary may be dishonest, may become dishonest. When you appoint an auditor, the secretary is honest, and you appoint the auditor in order that the secretary may be protected against any temptation to dishonesty. In this instance the Attorney-General said, "Ah, but we have in this country a police force whose record is entirely above suspicion." That is not true at all. The police force in Great Britain in the last century behaved exactly in the same way as every police force does in circumstances of keen political difficulty, in the same way as the police forces of Canada and America behave at the present time, in the same way as the police force of Germany behaves. The police force immediately becomes corrupt if it becomes the instrument of a corrupt Government. The police force always obeys the policy of the Government in power, and if an atmosphere of
great stringency arose in Great Britain, the honesty of the police force would disappear in a night.

Mr. GIBSON: Nonsense!

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member says "Nonsense," but you can never protect yourself against the abuse of power by appointing a good man into power, otherwise every tyrant could be justified on this ground. You check the abuse of power—

Mr. GIBSON: Does the hon. Member mean to suggest that in the crisis of 1931 the police of this country were corrupt?

Mr. BEVAN: Everybody now recognises that the crisis of 1931 was an artificial crisis, and, as a matter of fact, the country is now discovering how artificial it was, to the great discomfiture of the Members of the present Government.

Mr. PIKE: Why did you run away?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is quite out of order.

Mr. BEVAN: I regret that I cannot follow these interruptions; I am bound to confine myself to the Clause. I was endeavouring to show that the whole essence of democracy, as I see it, is that when you give people power, you surround that power by all sorts of restrictions and safeguards in order that that power may not be abused. You do not defend yourself by saying that the man who is going to exercise this power is a good and upright and scrupulous man, and therefore you do not need to have any safeguard. The whole history of democracy is a history of the curtailment of power by progressive safeguards. I believe, if I might be allowed a classical allusion, that it was Plutarch who said that when a man's power becomes equal to his passions, he becomes a tyrant. All that we are striving to do by this Clause is to impose some limitation upon the power of the police. Some hon. Members have suggested that, after all, this thing has been done before, that powers of general search of this kind have been given before, and therefore we should do it again, but I would like to ask hon. Members opposite, if that argument be a sound one, why there should be any limitation upon the police at all. Why should they not be allowed to enter any premises, provided they have a warrant?
Will the Attorney-General tell me, if our protection be merely in the scrupulousness of the police, why they should not have powers to search under any Act of Parliament?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As the hon. Member appeals to me, the obvious answer is that my remark that the position is sufficiently safeguarded already must be taken as applicable to the position contained in the Bill, the position that the safeguard in the Bill requiring a warrant from a magistrate or a judge seems to me a sufficient safeguard.

Mr. BEVAN: So that in point of fact our principal safeguard for the citizen does not lie in the scrupulousness of the police, but in the safeguard in the Bill. Where is the right hon. and learned Gentleman going to stand? I understand him to say, on the one hand—I quote his own words—" We are happy in this country in being safeguarded by an. in-corrupt police force. "This proposed new Clause is unnecessary, apparently, because the police force is incorrupt. Why, therefore, if the incorruptibility of the police is our defence, should not these incorruptible people be given general powers? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House any reason why any limitations at all should be imposed upon the police? Is it because they might become corrupt? Must there be safeguards because in some circumstances the police force becomes corrupt If so, in what circumstances are the police liable to become corrupt? It is in the circumstances visualised by this Bill. It is in a fierce political controversy, it is in matters of religious and political opinion—it is on this piece of territory that the police are more susceptible to be influenced by the general atmosphere of the times. We feel, therefore that it is precisely in these circumstances that safeguards ought to be produced. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that the protection which the Clause gives is not the sort of protection that we would like to have, but at least it broadens the basis of the conspiracy. I should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give me his attention and not adopt the old Parliamentary trick of having a discussion with his friends behind.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was merely asking my hon. and learned Friend behind me if he would tell a
certain public official that I need not make further demands on his services. I hope the hon. Member will apologise.

Mr. BEVAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not usually verbose, but he has been saying that for the last few minutes. I was directing my remarks particularly to what he said on this Clause and I was hoping to have his attention because, as I understand it, the whole of his case this afternoon and during the whole course of this Bill is that the safeguards we are suggesting are unnecessary because the police can be relied upon. I am suggesting to him that if that were the case there never would have been any safeguards against a general search at all, and that we are desiring to put safeguards in in this particular instance because safeguards are more necessary in this kind of legislation than in any other. An hon. Gentleman behind me suggested that after all, if you have two men accompanying the police in a search of premises, it is no protection against the planting of documents. The police would have to select the citizens very carefully. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that they might easily select instruments of themselves—I think he said "their own creatures." But they would have to be careful because if they were going to found any prosecution upon the evidence of those persons, the persons would have to be above suspicion, for if any charge could be made against them in the courts it would, to a large extent, invalidate their evidence. The police would therefore have to be very careful in the selection of the witnesses who would accompany them.
Hon. Members have said that it would be easy for the police to plant evidence in the house, although there would be witnesses present. They would obviously have to plant that evidence in a secret place, because if a man were to be liable to arrest for the possession of subversive documents, he would not have them lying about anywhere; and witnesses would be accompanying the police to just those places where the householder or the charged person would be liable to keep his private documents. It would be much more difficult to plant documents in circumstances of that kind, so that the protection which is being asked in this Clause is not so flimsy as is being made
out. If hon. Members will look at the Bill they will see that no crime has as yet been committed by the person whose household is being searched. It is true that the search is in pursuance of the suspicion of a crime, but the suspected person is not necessarily the person whose house is to be searched. The Bill says:
If any person, with intent to commit or to aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of an offence.
It is not the man who makes the speech whose house will be searched under this Bill. It is a friend of his, a member of his party, a member of the executive of his party, a person moving about in the same circle as himself and presumably holding the same views as himself—a printer or a publisher, or anybody like that, but not the individual who has committed the crime. Indeed, the crime has not yet been committed at all, but the police are going in search of evidence of a crime. This is an extraordinary position. Here are powers of general search given to the police to search premises of a private citizen whose only crime is that he may be associated with a man who may be suspected of a crime. That is the position under the Bill. Hon. Members, in speeches in the country and the House, have affected to regard this Bill as a very small matter indeed, but the more the language of the Bill becomes understood in the country the more serious is the view taken of it. I am not sure that when the future of the police of this country comes to be reviewed the principal enemies will not be found to be the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, because if any political trial of an important character is to take place under the Bill, nobody will believe in the impartiality of the police.
This Government sets the police against the citizens of the country and brings the whole police force under suspicion; it brings itself under suspicion, too, by not allowing any check upon the police and by enabling the police to have the largest possible liberty to conspire against the citizens. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. There have been suspicions before that the police have planted documents. During the War very many people suspected that some of the prosecutions that occurred were the consequence of police conspiracy. An hon. Friend reminds me that the Prime Minister him-
self said so. The police who carry out this work are not the ordinary police but the political police who are specially recruited for the purpose, and are already under suspicion. I have seen in Canada and America what policemen can do in circumstances of this kind.

Mr. GIBSON: They are not English police.

Mr. BEVAN: But they are English police.

Mr. GIBS0N: They are Irish.

Mr. BEVAN: It is a most disloyal statement for an hon. Member to say that you can trust Englishmen, but that you cannot trust Irishmen. Is that the assumption? That is what the hon. Member infers, and if there are any Irishmen in the House I can imagine that they will be stirred by it. The police in Canada, and America are largely Englishmen and Irishmen, and there are many evidences that they have abused the powers that have been reposed in them.

We want to protect the police against the ill-advised behaviour of the Tories in this House who are putting in the hands of the police powers that nobody should possess. If the Government want to protect the liberties of the subject and desire to maintain democracy untarnished, they will give this proposed Clause further consideration, because this question is causing great anxiety up and down the country and people will feel, if the police can enter premises at any time of the day or night without check, without hindrance, with perfect liberty to plant documents, that powers of that description will bring the whole police under suspicion and do great injury to the maintenance of order in this land.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose in his place, and claimed to move,  "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 318; Noes, 75.

Division No. 365.]
AYES.
6.57 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Elmley, Viscount


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Apsley, Lord
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fox, Sir Gifford


Asks, Sir Robert William
Christle, James Archibald
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Assheton, Ralph
Clarke, Frank
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gibson, Charles Granville


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colfox, Major William Philip
Glossop, C. W. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Colman, N. C. D.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Conant, R. J. E.
Goff, Sir Park


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cook, Thomas A.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cooke, Douglas
Gower, Sir Robert


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Copeland, Ida
Graves, Marjorie


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Blindell, James
Crooke, J. Smedley
Grimston, R. V.


Borodale, Viscount
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bossom, A. C.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Boulton, W. W.
Cross, R. H.
Gunton, Captain D. W.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hales, Harold K.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hanley, Dennis A.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Broadbent, Colonel John
Denville, Alfred
Harbord, Arthur


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dickie, John P.
Hartland, George A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Doran, Edward
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Drewe, Cedric
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berke., Newb'y)
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Buchan, John
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Burghley, Lord
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Burnett, John George
Dunglass, Lord
Hepworth, Joseph


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Eady, George H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Eastwood, John Francis
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hornby, Frank


Horobin, Ian M.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Munro, Patrick
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Natlon, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Normand, Rt. Hon, Wilfrid
Soper, Richard


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Nunn, William
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Iveagh, Countess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


James, Wing.-Com, A. W. H.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Jamieson, Douglas
Patrick, Colin M.
Spens, William Patrick


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Peake, Osbert
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Pearson, William G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'moriand)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peat, Charles U.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Penny, Sir George
Stevenson, James


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Knight, Holford
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stones, James


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Storey, Samuel


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pike, Cecil F.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Powell, Lieut.-Col, Evelyn G. H.
Strauss, Edward A.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Leckie, J. A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lees-Jones, John
Pybus, Sir John
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Radford, E. A.
Templeton, William P.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Levy, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lewis, Oswald
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Thompson, Sir Luke


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Remer, John R.
Todd, A. L. S (Kingswinford)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Loftus, Pierce C.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Train, John


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rickards, George William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mabane, William
Robinson, John Roland
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Turton, Robert Hugh


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ross, Ronald D.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


MacDonald, Rt, Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


McKie, John Hamilton
Runge, Norah Cecil
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Mooney, Thomas
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Maitland, Adam
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Meller, Sir Richard James
Scone, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Selley, Harry R.
Wise, Alfred R.


Milne, Charles
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Withers, Sir John James


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Mitcheson, G. G.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Worthington. Dr. John V.


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Moreing, Adrian C.
Skelton, Archibald Noel



Morgan, Robert H.
Slater, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, William Shepherd
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Major George Davies and Dr. Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Addison, At. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Kirkwood, David


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Banfield, John William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawson, John James


Bernays, Robert
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leonard, William


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)
Lunn, William


Buchanan, George
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ines)


Cape, Thomas
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Groves, Thomas E.
McGovern, John


Cove, William G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
McKeag, William


Dagger, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Harris, Sir Percy
Malnwaring, William Henry


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Healy, Cahir
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Davies, Stephen Owen
Hicks, Ernest George
Maxton, James


Dobbie, William
Holdsworth, Herbert
Milner, Major James


Edwards, Charles
Janner, Barnett
Nathan, Major H. L.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
John, William
Owen, Major Goronwy


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Paling, Wilfred




Parkinson, John Allen
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilmot, John


Rathbone, Eleanor
West, F. R.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
White, Henry Graham
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)



Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thorne, William James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Mr. Walter Rea and Mr. Harcourt Johnstone.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 325.

Division No. 366.]
AYES
[7.9 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxtor, James.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bernays, Robert
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Healy Cahir
Paling, Wilfred


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Alien


Burnett, John George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
West, F. R.


Dobbie, William
Lansbury, RI. Hon. George
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGovern, John



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McKeag, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Walter Rea and Mr. Harcourt Johnstone.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buchan, John
Denman, Hon, R. D.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Burghley, Lord
Denville, Alfred


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Burnett, John George
Dickie, John P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Doran, Edward


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Drewe, Cedric


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.


Apsley, Lord
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Assheton, Ralph
Cassels, James Dale
Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dunglue, Lord


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Eady, George H.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Eastwood, John Francis


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Christle, James Archibald
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Elmley, Viscount


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Colman, N. C. D.
Eseenhigh, Reginald Clare


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Fermoy, Lord


Blindell, James
Conant, R. J. E.
Fox, Sir Gifford


Borodale, Viscount
Cook, Thomas A.
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Bossom, A. C.
Cooke, Douglas
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Copeland, Ida
Gibson, Charles Granville


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Glossop, C. W. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goff, Sir Park


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cross, R. H.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Gower, Sir Robert


Broadbent, Colonel John
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Grimston, R. V.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C (Berks., Newb'y)
Davison, Sir William Henry
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hales, Harold K.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Slater, John


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Milne, Charles
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'ff'd & Chisw'k)
Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-in-F.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitcheson, G. G.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Harbord, Arthur
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne,C.)


Hartland, George A.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Morgan, Robert H.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Soper, Richard


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J 


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Munro, Patrick
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hepworth, Joseph
Nall, Sir Joseph
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Spens, William Patrick


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nunn, William
Stevenson, James


Hornby, Frank
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Horobin, Ian M.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Stones, James


Horsbrugh, Florence
Patrick, Colin M.
Storey, Samuel


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peake, Osbert
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pearson, William G.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peat, Charles U.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Penny, Sir George
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sutcliffe, Harold


Iveagh, Countess of
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


James, Wing, Com. A. W. H.
Pike, Cecil F.
Templeton, William P.


Jamieson, Douglas
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thompson, Sir Luke


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Pybus, Sir John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Radford, E. A.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Train, John


Leckie, J. A,
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lees-Jones, John
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Remer, John R.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Levy, Thomas
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Lewis, Oswald
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Liddall, Walter S.
Rickards, George William
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Robinson, John Roland
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Little, Graham-, Sic Ernest
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Liewellin, Major John J.
Rosbotham Sir Thomas
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ross, Ronald D.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Loftus, Pierce C.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R
Runge, Norah Cecil
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wise, Alfred R.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Withers Sir John James


McKle, John Hamilton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Womersley, Sir Walter


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Magnay, Thomas
Scone, Lord
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Maitland, Adam
Selley, Harry R.



Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
and Major George Davies.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Appointment of appeal tribunal to hear appeals against convictions.)

A special tribunal of five persons appointed by the Attorney-General and approved by the Commons House of Parliament shall be set up to which persons convicted of an offence under this Act shall have the right of appeal against such conviction on the ground that it is an unreasonable interference with the liberty of speech
and action formerly enjoyed under the constitution of this Country.—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In moving this Clause, I would repeat what I said when I spoke on the previous
one, that we are submitting new Clauses and Amendments with the object of limiting the operations of what we regard as a very bad Bill. It may well be that we should not have moved such a Clause as this in the case of other Measures, but we view this Bill with a great deal of apprehension and think this Clause will limit its operations. Under it we are asking that any offender who has been convicted by the ordinary courts shall have a right of appeal to a body of five persons whose names shall, in the first place, be drafted by the Attorney - General, but who are to be approved by the House of Commons. We seek to differentiate between the class of crime dealt with under this Measure and other crimes, because we think that the prosecutions which will arise from this Bill will Come, roughly, under two heads: they will be called either seditious or political. So far as we are concerned, let me say that we can see little difference between what is called a seditious crime and a political crime. What appears to one man to be sedition may appear to another person a perfectly legitimate political point of view. Therefore, we put forward this proposal for a new appeal tribunal, because we feel that in this class of crime, or alleged crime, different issues arise from those met with in the general run of crime.
I expect the learned Attorney-General will not disagree with me when I say that, in the first place, the offender will be tried by an ordinary criminal judge, and then may have an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Quite frankly, the judges at the moment are, in the main, drawn from politicians. [Hog. _MEMERS: "No!"] Well, a large number of them are—[Hog. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and all of them, the overwhelming mass of them, have dabbled in politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!] Why should they be ashamed of it? Is there any reason to be ashamed of having dabbled in politics and being politicians? Certain people in this House make me wonder where we are travelling. I am a politician, I have been in politics for 12 years, I am earning a livelihood, and I see no shame in being a politician. I am as proud of my calling, and am as honest and devoted to my job, as any accountant or lawyer who is not in politics is proud of his job. After all, a politician is devoting himself to the common
weal and the wellbeing of his constituents, so why be ashamed of being in politics? Why hide the facts?
Take Scotland. All the judges in the High Courts in Scotland are not politically trained, but the big majority—not all, but most—are active politicians. They have taken an active part in political discussions. Take the Lords of Appeal. There is Lord Thankerton, Lord Macmillan—nearly every one of them has been at some time or other associated with politics. These judges will be trying offences, or alleged offences, about which they already have strong feelings and have taken part in discussions upon them. It will be entirely different from trying an ordinary criminal, because though a politician may be good or bad, at least he has not been in crime. We shall be asking these men to try other men for alleged sedition, knowing quite well that the alleged criminal will start off with this handicap, that, very often, the judge or other person trying him has already expressed political views on the subject. Take the learned Attorney - General and the learned Solicitor-General. Everybody knows that they are going to the bench sooner or later.

Mr. McGOVERN: The sooner the better.

Mr. BUCHANAN: And why should they be ashamed of it? They are both going to the bench. Possibly they will go quicker if political events move fast. This is the peculiar thing, that as their party goes down and becomes unpopular the way of escape for them is the bench. In that they are unlike other politicians, who suffer and lose their jobs. Before the deluge comes they will get a better job and clear out, and leave their fellow politicians to their fate. What is happening here is that the Attorney-General is leading his Government into passing an unpopular Measure—it is that, say what you like—and when the time comes he, unlike any other Cabinet Minister, will be promoted for having led his Government to death, and will sit on the bench; and the Solicitor-General will sit on the bench also and they will try men for crimes under this Bill. The men on whom they will be sitting in judgment will be presumed to be innocent.
Is there any man in this House who, if he were charged with a political crime
under this Bill, would like to be tried by either of the two gentlemen named, knowing the views they have expressed? To be quite frank, nobody would like it. They would not like to be tried by men who had already, to some extent, shown their hand. Therefore, we are advocating this proposal for an appeal tribunal because, looking at the composition of the bench and the class of crime dealt with, we see how easy it is for prejudice to be created. Therefore, we say that in addition to the appeal to the ordinary Court of Criminal Appeal, an appeal should lie to an additional court of five persons approved by this House of Commons. There has always been a great deal of argument on this point. I do not take the view that justice should be outside the control of the House of Commons, which is the view held everywhere; but I am not going to argue that. It may be a good rule or a bad, and I think it is bad, but it is accepted. I am not going to argue it, for the two reasons that to do so would be out of order, and that it would draw me away from my Clause.
The House of Commons has no control over the judges, and we assume that that is for the good. I accept that for ordinary crime and litigation, but when it comes to political or seditious offences on which the judges may have already expressed opinions, the House of Commons should have some power of review as to how the law is being used. The Attorney-General has said all along that he has no intention of using the Bill with any degree of oppression against anyone. That is all right to those who do not know the Attorney-General, but not to those who know him. I do not say this harshly, but I think that in political matters he is cruel. I do not know a more cruel force in this House in political matters than he. [Interruption.] Yes. In ordinary crime, 99 times out of 100, a person knows he is doing wrong, but in every one of these alleged offences a person thinks that he is doing right, and that he is performing a duty to the nation. Is it fair that that person should be handed over to a man who has already revealed his point of view? That would be wrong, and that is why I ask for a tribunal of five persons, to be appointed by the House of Commons.
What is crime to one Government is possibly not crime to another. As an. analogy, take Northern Ireland. I am not going over the history of that country; it is sufficient to point out that at the time of certain events in Northern Ireland one body of people who were likely to be the Government held that the actions of Lord Carson were perfectly right, and another body held that the actions were seditious. The present Government might make their political opponents guilty of sedition, and we ask that the House of Commons should set up a body of five people responsible to the House to consider the subject after the judges, if an aggrieved person has appealed. That is a necessary safeguard. This kind of offence should be lifted out and treated differently from the others. We do not accept the Bill, but we are seeking to find a means of limiting the powers of dealing with political opponents.
I said something a moment ago about judges coming from politics. There might well be a case in which a Government did not want to prosecute but in which a judge was exercising a private vendetta against people whose only offence was that they differed from him. Because of that, the House of Commons ought to set up this appeal tribunal, and to accept the proposed new Clause as some restriction of the proposed powers.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I hope for two reasons that the proposed new Clause will not be accepted. I intervene because so much has been said about this being an unpopular Bill, and it is a good thing that some of us should state quite clearly that we do not believe that it is an unpopular Bill and that we support it wholeheartedly. There are two grounds for opposing this Clause, and the first of them is that political and seditious crime should not be treated in any way differently from other crime. A crime is against the law of the country because it is anti-social, and has been considered by the law-makers to do harm to the body politic. You may do harm to the political body, or murder someone who, you think, should be out of the way. That is often done by people who think they are perfectly right There
are murderers, forgers, swindlers and others who think they are perfectly right in what they are doing. I cannot see that it is in any way less a crime when it is engineered against the State, presumably, and only presumably, from motives of conscience, than is the more common form of crime committed against individuals or property from exactly the same motives. In passing, I deny that political crime is by any means always done from motives of conscience. As often as not it is done from motives of pure gain, and I cannot see that it is susceptible of any other treatment than that which is accorded to the ordinary criminal.
I deny point-blank the suggestion that a judge who has been a Conservative in politics is likely to be less fair in trying a Communist guilty of sedition, or that the judge who has been a Socialist in politics would be less fair in trying a Fascist for sedition than a judge who is notoriously opposed to the taking of life would be in trying a murderer. There may be bias in ordinary crime as in political crime, but I deny that it would lead the judges to form unfair conclusions. Like many other hon. Members I have sat in judgment on my fellow-men at quarter sessions, and I have found almost invariably that our justices act simply and solely according, not to the nature of the crime, but according to the law on the subject, and I am convinced that my legal friends who have far greater experience than I will bear that out. An accused man either is, or is not, guilty according to the law.
So much for the point dealing with the judges. There is a much sounder argument against the Clause than that. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has entirely omitted to point out that the public control which he desires is already available in the shape of a jury. I am speaking subject to correction, but I am practically sure that cases under the Bill will without exception be tried before a jury, or before the accused's peers. We are familiar with the methods of selecting a jury. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) say that accused persons under the Bill would not be tried by a jury?

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Not necessarily. They may be summarily tried.

Mr. BEAUM0NT: I think I am right in saying that an accused person can elect to be tried by a jury which is to say that he can always have public control. I do not know that anyone suggests that juries are biased, except in the general sense that they are probably biased in favour of any prisoner. If a man who has been tried wants public control and wants a verdict divorced from politics and from the law, he has it in his jury. I do not believe for one second that any judge who may try these cases will be unfair, but if he is I am sure that a jury is capable of righting the defect. All the safeguard that is wanted for any crime is trial by jury, and I see no reason for making a special case of this class of crime. I hope that the Attorney-General will reject the Clause.

7.45 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am in a little embarrassment in rising to speak about this Clause. After hearing the remarks of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) about myself, the House will perhaps be surprised, if they have not read the Clause, to know that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting in it that I should appoint the proposed tribunal. It shows a touching faith in my impartiality which I highly appreciate. I am afraid, however, that even such a personal appeal cannot induce me to accept the Amendment. There seem to me to be two very good reasons against it. In the first place, it is most undesirable that you should have political parties appointing judges. The hon. Gentleman said that he was of opinion, contrary to the popular belief, that the judges of the land should be under what he called popular control. He is 300 years too late. That great controversy was settled in the time of James I beyond the possibility of change, and this country owes its happiness and freedom largely to the fact that it took Chief Justice Coke's view of the functions of judges in preference to the view of the great Bacon, which was that the judges ought to be the servants of the Executive.
The other reason why I think this Clause ought to be unacceptable is that there would be two tribunals administering two different laws in relation to the same offence. One tribunal would be the Court of Criminal Appeal, administering the ordinary law of the land; the other
tribunal, which would be a concurrent tribunal, apparently, would administter some new law which would require the tribunal to say whether there had been an unreasonable interference with the liberty of speech and action formerly enjoyed under the Constitution of this country. Just fancy this tribunal, appointed by the Attorney-General and approved by a political House of Commons, deciding what was the measure of political liberty formerly enjoyed in this country. I was almost confident that the hon. Gentleman would not propose this Clause. It is reactionary in effect, if he will allow me to say so, in that it goes back to the thoroughly bad practice which this country, as I have pointed out, long ago abandoned, of judges of criminal offences being appointed or largely controlled by the Executive of the day. I hope the House will see very good reason not to accept the Clause.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I have listened to the Attorney-General with that care and respect with which I listened to him during all the proceedings on this Measure. He refers to the proposal of my hon. Friend as a reactionary one. It may be, or it may not be, but it is attached to a reactionary Measure. The Attorney-General says that my hon. Friend has gone back some 300 years; to the time of James I, for his precedents, but the Attorney-General himself, in introducing the Bill, went further back than that, and our reason for bringing forward this proposal—which we admit is a new proposal so far as our criminal code is concerned—is because the Attorney-General, in introducing the Measure, is starting, whether deliberately or unconsciously, a new era in British political life. The principle upon which we have operated our politics in this country for many years has been that of discussion and persuasion, but it would seem that we are now going to follow the example set by so many countries on the Continent of Europe, and are going to cease to try to persuade our political opponents, or to convince them, or argue with them, and are going to shut them up in prison. That is the meaning of the Measure. It has the approval of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). It is touching to see him finding one thing in common with the present Government. I am not surprised,
because he is one of the few Members of this House who have stood up and made an open declaration of belief in Fascist methods. I can understand his enthusiasm for the Measure.
I have wondered whether it was the Attorney-General or the Government that was responsible for this Measure—whether the Attorney-General led the Government, or the Government led the Attorney-General. On many days in the Committee he did not look the enthusiast that one would expect, who was running his own hare. On many a day he seemed to look as if he was merely in charge of a rabbit which he was not very fond of, and I have not made up my mind yet whether he or some other Member of the Government was responsible for shoving this Measure before the House of Commons. It starts a new era in our political life. It starts an era in which we no longer believe in democracy. We do not believe now that people with different political ideas from ours should be allowed to express them; we believe that they should be shut up in prison. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the proposal, and the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), who is 0:taking his head, gave expression to it many times in Committee. He would not have me stand here and talk; he would have me in a prison cell any day. He would do it for my own good; it would be done with the highest motives; but it would be done.
We do not believe that this proposed new Clause would really destroy the evil. It will not get an independent tribunal. We do not believe that an independent, unbiased, judicially minded tribunal can be obtained to adjudicate on offences of the kind involved in this Measure. We believe that every tribunal before which a man can be haled for a political offence will be a prejudiced tribunal; we have no illusions about that. The only claim that we make for the tribunal of appeal that we are endeavouring to set up is that it will contain roughly all the existing prejudices. They will all be represented in the tribunal, just as we have in this House a similar tribunal when offences against the House are involved. We have a Committee of Privileges, which no one could claim was without its prejudices. But it is representative of nearly all parties in the House, and we know that, when any case is taken to that Com-
mittee of Privileges, while the minority view may not carry in the Committee, it will at least be heard.
I must say I agree with my hon. Friend that, when the Attorney-General makes an appearance of giving something away, it is only because he feels that he is getting something more by the apparent concession; the iron hand is there all the time. In reply to my hon. Friend he says: "The hon. Member for Gorbals cannot trust me as Attorney-General; he thinks I am a harsh man; but he trusts me to set up this tribunal. "In the first, place, the reply to that is that the Attorney-General, whatever he may think or hope on the subject, is not Attorney-General until the end of time. He just happens by a series of regrettable accidents to be Attorney-General in this particular Government which is in power. He knows that he regrets some of the accidents very much, but he is there only temporarily, not for all eternity, and a new Attorney-General would have the appointment of a new Committee.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Apparently it would be the new Parliament, but even that is obscure in the hon. Gentleman's proposed new Clause.

Mr. MAXTON: It would not be obscure in practice, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well. It does not say that it would be for the period of one Parliament, and it does not say, either, that it would be for ever. It
says:
A special tribunal of five persons appointed by the Attorney-General and approved by the Commons House of Parliament";
and whenever the Commons House of Parliament ceases to approve of the tribunal or of the existing Attorney-General, it can make the appropriate change as the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows. These five men appointed by the Attorney-General have to be submitted to the House of Commons on appointment. Of course it may be that we have got to the stage that an Attorney-General might be found—it is in keeping with the general trend of thought in bringing forward this type of Measure—who would choose only for that tribunal persons of the same political prejudices as himself, but that has not been the practice up to the present time in the House of Commons. When the House of
Commons has been setting up representative committees or tribunals, it has always been regarded as the fair democratic game to make the tribunal representative of the various points of view in the House, and to allow even minorities to have representation. We can see under this method the case of a perfectly innocent citizen having in his possession the literature of his own party, having in his house, as I have at the moment—I have not had time to get rid of it—the reprint of that portion of the Memoirs of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) dealing with Passchendaele. Presumably that has been sent to every Member of the House of Commons—a. nicely printed booklet or brochure containing just that portion which deals with the Passchendaele experience. If that fell into the hands of a Member of the armed forces, I should think it would have a serious tendency to seduce the young soldier from his duty and allegiance to the Crown—

Commander MARSDEN: Was it written for that purpose?

Mr. MAXTON: I do not know whether it was written for that purpose, but I could conceive of its being circulated for that purpose, and presumably somebody other than the writer saw some purpose in reprinting it and sending a copy of it to me. Presumably he wants to influence my political thinking on the subject. I am not quite so stupid or so closed to all reason that I am never influenced either by the writings or the utterances of my political opponents. Surely the House would not generally level that charge against me. But if I had not believed in the futility of war before, this publication would have certainly given me cause for long and serious thought. I do not know to whom it has been distributed. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) perhaps has had a copy and has retained it. He has probably not had time to read it. His house can be searched from top to toe. He may be haled into court. He is tried first of all by magistrates. I have every respect for their ability to deal with picking pockets, drunkenness and brutal assaults. I want hon. Members opposite to get off the sort of parliamentary high horse that they sometimes get on and
think of the magistrates that they know in their own locality. I do not like slang but, to use a current phrase, let us "debunk" the magistrates and imagine their sitting on the bench, thinking about getting away for lunch, perhaps sleeping during most of the proceedings, because a large proportion. where the hon. Member comes from are hearty, free living, open-air men who find the atmosphere of the court somewhat oppressive and, if they do not actually go to sleep, often become somewhat somnolent. Imagine their being asked to decide, before lunch, whether the hon. Member for White-chapel, having had in his possession this particular document, has had it with the idea of seducing the members of the armed forces of the Crown from their duty or allegiance. He has not brought a dictionary with him. He has not got his private secretary with him. He is absolutely incapable. He is simply flummoxed and says, "How much can we give him?" and he is away for a possible two years, with a fine on top of it.
The hon. Member shakes his head and the Attorney-General, in his careless, irresponsible way says, "No one will ever do that sort of thing. You can reply on this man and the next man being fair and decent." What we are concerned with is not that the other fellow that we are imposing the duty on shall carry it out with a maximum of common sense. In passing our Measure through we have to see that we are not putting into the hands of some persons, police, magistrates or any others, a power which, if operated as we know legal proceedings are operated, would lead to citizens who have done nothing of an illegal or criminal nature being landed in prison and branded as criminals for life. Then supposing there is an ordinary appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. It comes up before judges of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) indicated. What is the routine of the Court of Criminal Appeal 99 times out of 100? What they say in a political case is, "If he was not doing this he was doing something very like it. In any case he has had six months already and another six months will not do him any harm." I agree with my hon. Friend that, where it is a murder trial and a human life is at stake, there is in all
the courts, from the initiation of any proceedings, a care and a consideration that this life shall not be taken without every precaution being observed. But where political things are involved that does not happen. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir V. Bowater) has a wide experience of political offences. The City of London has always been recognised as a hotbed of seditious propaganda.
In the case of a political offence the care that is taken in the case of a murder is not taken and, as any one of us who has been involved in it knows, from the moment of the issue of the warrant there is a carelessness and a lack of regard for what is involved for the other person because we do not like him to begin with, we do not like his ideas, and his views are objectionable. That cannot be obliterated by any means that we know of. From the very beginning of the action there will be prejudices which cannot be neutralised but an independent tribunal, composed not of judges but of five persons chosen by this assembly of Parliament, whatever Parliament it may be, and representative of the various political views which are current in the community is not an unprejudiced assembly but an assembly of men who have experience of being day-to-day engaged in political controversy. It is a group of men who can reasonably be expected to know whether some act has passed beyond the stage of reasonable political controversy and has gone into another realm, which is sedition. It is a group of people who, recognising one another's prejudices, would be prepared to consider the case of the condemned person in a more broadminded way than is achievable in the ordinary routine operation of the courts of law. I admit that the proposed Clause has no precedent in judicial procedure, but this Measure has no precedent. This is something new. We have to confront an evil and a vicious element being introduced into our public life. While we seemingly cannot stop it, we can do our best by a device such as this to prevent the maximum evil of its operation.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The Attorney-General said that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) showed a touching faith in him.I should say that what he
showed was that we have arrived at a stage of things when it is a case of desperate measures when my hon. Friend has to rely upon the Attorney-General. While this is no ideal method, my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) are on much stronger ground, where matters affecting the liberty of the individual are concerned, than the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General thinks that, after all, the might and majesty of the law in these matters is enough. You have an unprejudiced judge and, if you take this thing out of the atmosphere of politics and Parliament, you are more likely to have a balanced judgment. I should certainly prefer, if liberty has to be interfered with at all, that the final decision should be in the hands of Parliament and its representatives rather than in the hands of those outside Parliament. The Attorney-General says this method has been tried, but it is also certain that this has been the great battle ground of liberty in past centuries, and that any Government that appointed a tribunal, and indeed any tribunal, would be undoubtedly affected by the fact of their being representatives who do not sit up aloft free from public criticism.
There is one difficulty about all this Debate to-night. What we have been discussing in the main, unfortunately, is the machinery that has to be set up assuming that the Bill comes into operation. We have never yet had an opportunity of discussing the real living issues that are at stake in respect of the Bill. We shall get to that later, but it is a question up to the present of discussing the right sort of machinery. But whether we are discussing the principle itself or the machinery, the fact still remains that the question of liberty of opinion for the individual is at stake. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton pointed out the difficulty, in the first place, of having magistrates judging one in this matter. There are magistrates of different kinds. The magisterial bench of this country generally is a body which renders splendid service, but anyone who resides in Tory districts knows that there are persons acting as magistrates totally unfitted to sit in judgment in matters of this kind. We had a magistrate in Committee upstairs. He did not make any hones about the matter. He eyed the hon. Member for Bridgeton, often a more
moderate person than myself, very doubtfully indeed, and he could not sit quiet during our very moderate speeches. He went so far as to say that we ought to be "put down" or "shut up" or something of that description. That kind of person is scattered all over the country. You find them here and there. Think of someone going to a person of that description and saying, "Here is the Member for Bridgeton. He must be a doubtful person as he has bought Lord Snowden's autobiography this week."

Mr. MAXTON: I did not buy it.

Mr. LAWSON: Here is a book attacking the Prime Minister, and I can imagine that in some areas certain magistrates would really get very red in the face when they talked about books of that description being scattered abroad. An innocent person like myself would not be found reading such wild, revolutionary documents, but I do receive, practically every month, a publication issued by the Soviet Government showing with remarkable photographic ability the constructive work which is going on in that country. Great art is shown in its pages. I can imagine some of these informers, seeing this curious document going into homes in some of these Tory areas. I dare say that there are many Members of this House who receive this monthly magazine. Some of the people in those areas would be in danger of being proceeded against for some kind of offence. I can imagine political conditions in this country when a person might be hauled up before a judge, and when the judge himself, even with the best will in the world and true to the highest traditions of the judicial bench of this country, would not entirely be unswayed by the political sentiment of the time.
I, like the hon. Member for Bridgeton, have not made up my mind as to who is responsible for this Bill and for endangering the principle with which we are dealing here to-day. Some say that it is the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. They have stood openly for the saving of this principle, but they have not been in a hurry to show themselves here tonight any more than they were in Committee upstairs. I assume that it is very possible that it will be as much political in its application as it will in its effect upon the various forces of the Crown.
It may be that the Government know just where they want to go for this kind of material, and that they know when they are going to make a raid.

Mr. DEPUTY- SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think that the speech of the hon. Member is now becoming more suitable to the Third Reading.

Mr. LAWSON: I was carried away, and I am extremely sorry. I shall have something to say on that matter very definitely later on in any case. We are dealing with a very crude Bill and one

of the very few methods that could be adopted to safeguard the individual whose liberty is challenged. Every time I should be prepared to trust Parliament with the safe-keeping of liberty, whenever it was challenged rather than leave the decision merely in the hands of the benches. For that reason, if the hon. Gentleman goes to a Division, we shall certainly support him in this Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 273.

Division No. 367.]
AYES
[8.22 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, Wilfred


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorne, William James


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymoar
John, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cove, William G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William



Gardner, Benjamin Waiter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Elmley, Viscount


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Apsley, Lord
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fox, Sir Gifford


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cassels, James Dale
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Aesheton, Ralph
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Gibson, Charles Granville


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Gledhill, Gilbert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Christle, James Archibald
Glossop, C. W. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Goff, Sir Park


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Conant, R. J. E.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cook, Thomas A.
Grimston, R. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Cooke, Douglas
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Copeland, Ida
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Bernaye, Robert
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bottom, A. C.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hales, Harold K.


Boulton, W. W.
Crookehank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hamlltoh, Sir George (Ilford)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hammereley, Samuel S.


Bower, Commander Robert Tattoo
Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Harbord, Arthur


Boyce, H. Leslie
Davies, Mal. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Hartland, George A.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Denville, Alfred
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dickie, John P.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Doran, Edward
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Hepworth, Joseph


Buchan, John
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Duggan, Hubert John
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Burghley, Lord
Duncan, James A, L. (Kensington, N.)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Dunglass, Lord
Hopkinson, Austin


Burnett, John George
Eales, John Frederick
Hore-Belisha, Leslle


Hornby, Frank
Morrison, William Shepherd
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Horobin, Ian M.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, Patrick
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Soper, Richard


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Nunn, William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Spens, William Patrick


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Ormiston, Thomas
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


James, Wing-Coin. A. W. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Steel-Maltland, Rt, Hon. Sir Arthur


Jamieson, Douglas
On Ewing, I. L.
Stevenson, James


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Pearson, William G.
Stones, James


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Peat, Charles U.
Storey, Samuel


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Penny, Sir George
Strauss, Edward A.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sutcllffe, Harold


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Petherick, M.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pike, Cecil F.
Templeton, William P.


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Leckie, J. A.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thompson, Sir Luke


Lees-Jones, John
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Levy, Thomas
Pybus, Sir John
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Lewis, Oswald
Radford, E. A.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Train, John


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Liewellin, Major John J.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Loftus, Pierce C.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wallace. John (Dunfermline)


Mabane, William
Remer, John R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C.G. (Partick)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Robinson, John Roland
Ward. Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ropner, Colonel L.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


McKeag, William
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Runge, Norah Cecil
Weymouth, Viscount


Magnay, Thomas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Maitland, Adam
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Scone, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel


Meller, Sir Richard James
Selley, Harry R.
George Wise, Alfred R.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Worthington. Dr. John V.


Milne, Charles
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'[...]t'd & Chlsw'k)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.



Mitcheson, G. G.
Shute, Colonel J. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Captain Austin Hudson and Sir Walter Womersley.


Morgan, Robert H.
Slater, John



Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-in-F.)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on institution of legal proceedings.)

No legal proceedings shall be instituted under this Act without the written consent of the Attorney-General.—[Major Milner.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.31 p.m.

Major MILNER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It will be within the recollection of some hon. Members that promise of consideration of this matter was given in Committee. I gather that that consideration has resulted in the Government deciding to accept not this Clause but the Amendment to Clause 3 standing in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone), that:
No prosecution under this Act shall take place without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I frankly recognise that Amendment as being progress on the right lines, but I think the House ought to have an opportunity of deciding whether or not the consent of the Attorney-General, as the responsible officer under whom the Director of Public Prosecutions always acts on an important matter of this sort, should be necessary. I am, therefore, moving the new Clause which stands in my name.
I would press upon the House the necessity of having the consent of the Attorney-General because of the obvious importance of the matters included in the Bill and the consequences that prosecution may have upon the accused person.
When the Bill becomes an Act it will be used in times of stress and difficulty, possibly in times of war, and it is very desirable that the responsibility should be fixed, and I suggest that it should be fixed upon the Attorney-General. The Director of Public Prosecutions acts upon the instructions of the Attorney-General and is subject to the Attorney-General's authority, and it seems to me much better that the real responsibility should be with the Attorney-General.
There are other reasons why the Attorney-General should be the proper person to give consent. The offence of sedition, as it is commonly called in this Bill, is an offence against the State. When the Bill becomes an Act it will, if taken advantage of, be taken advantage of by this Government or some other Government of the future and the acts complained of will be acts against the Government of the day, that is, the publication of Fascist opinions or opinions which may have the effect of seducing soldiers, sailors or airmen from their loyalty. Therefore, the offence being one against the State it seems to me right that the chief legal officer of the State ought to be the person who authorises proceedings.
During the Committee stage the Attorney-General said that it would create a dilemma and that if the matter were non-political there was no necessity for the Attorney-General's fiat, but if it were a political question it was all the more reason why the Attorney-General should be kept out. I submit that it would create no dilemma at all. To-day, in many non-political matters proceedings are commenced by the Attorney-General, he has to give his sanction before legal proceedings can be instituted. He has to give his sanction to proceedings under the Explosives Act, 1883, the Public Bodies (Corrupt Practices) Act, 1889; the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, and none of these are cases of greater importance, in several they are of lesser importance, than the offences contemplated under this Bill. He has to give his sanction to prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act, 1911; under Section 327 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, under Section 103 of the Law of Property Act, to prosecutions in all matters of fraudulent concealment of documents and facts, in cases of fraud by trustees under an express trust,
and also in cases of incest where the Director of Public Prosecutions himself does not commence the prosecution. These matters are of no more importance than the matters dealt with under this Bill. Except for cases under the Official Secrets Act they are all non-political, and this House has insisted that in all these cases the sanction of the Attorney-General is necessary. I submit that it is necessary under the. present Bill.
If the offence be definitely a political one, then the public ought to know that it is a political offence, and who is responsible for the prosecution. The Government, through the Attorney-General, ought to take the responsibility. Under the Bill the responsibility seems to be thrust upon the local inspector of police. On the complaint of any person, the common informer, any man or woman, who swears on oath that they have reasonable grounds of suspicion that an offence has been committed, the local police have the responsibility of launching a prosecution. I submit that they should not have this responsibility. In the great majority of cases the offence will be political, and the responsibility should be on the Attorney-General.
There is a further argument in favour of the new Clause. It is curious that throughout the British Empire there seems to be something like a spate of Sedition Bills. Sedition Bills have been brought in in a number of Colonies, and I have had the opportunity of perusing a State Ordinance brought in in the Gold Coast Colony, where there is a Clause in precisely the same terms as the new Clause which I am submitting to the House—namely, that no legal proceedings shall be taken without the consent of the Attorney-General of the Colony. What is sufficient or necessary for the Colony, and considered sufficient by the Colonial Office as approving of the Ordinance, ought to be required by the House of Commons under this Bill.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: ; I beg to second the Motion.
I understand that the Government prefer the new Clause in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) to the effect that—
No prosecution under this Act shall take place without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I do not think that the Government is giving very much in accepting that proposal, because subsection (2) of Section 3 says:
Where a prosecution under this Act is being carried on by the Director of Public Prosecutions a court of summary jurisdiction shall not deal with the case summarily without the consent of the Director.
The assumption is that the Director of Public Prosecutions is carrying on the prosecution.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Under the Bill there is nothing to prevent what is called a private prosecution being carried through, but the Section to which the hon. Member refers merely provides that in cases where the Director of Public Prosecutions is in fact carrying on a prosecution he has certain powers. The hon. Member suggests that under the Bill no prosecution could be carried on except by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. LAWSON: No. The point is that the Director of Public Prosecutions is, shall I say, in the saddle under the Bill? Although it is possible to deal with a case in a court of summary jurisdiction it seems to me that the Director of Public Prosecutions is going to be the "big shot" in this matter. I do not think the Government are going very far in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for the English Universities, and the case for the new Clause is all the stronger that no prosecution should be instituted without the written consent of the Attorney-General. He is the head of the legal department, a man with some public responsibility, whereas the Director of Public Prosecutions—I am glad that I have never met him, and I do not want to meet him—is a vague kind of person of whom I have heard and read, but who is to my mind in these matters on a par with Madame Guillotine, that is, he works automatically, and decides whether a case shall be taken or not that any public influence or any influence so far as Parliament is concerned. He would not take into consideration the kind of factors which the Attorney-General would take into account. It is necessary continually to emphasise the fact that we are dealing
with matters affecting opinion. That cannot be too often stated. Sometimes the opinion will be the opinion of those with whom the Attorney-General will disagree. I know that some of the papers that the Attorney-General has handed over here, such as the "Red Signal," may express opinions with which in the main I do not agree, but it is just where you are dealing with matters affecting opinion and such delicate things affected by our Constitution that English history teaches us that we must walk very carefully.
I suppose it would not be in order now to make a long speech showing how time after time individuals and Govern-merits which sought to oppress opinion have been very thankful in course of time that they did not take that course. What to-day appears to be the right method, in a week's or a month's time may appear very stupid. If there is one thing that stands out in our history it is that even in the case of the most advanced and extreme sections of opinion it has been for the good of the public life of the land to let people express themselves and not to tend to much to oppress them. That has been so sometimes when we differed from that opinion so totally that is seemed that the best thing would be to suppress it. In a matter of that kind there is only one person who ought to have the responsibility for authorising proceedings being taken. That person is the Attorney-General, and he ought to put his consent into writing.
I am open to conviction, but I do not think that very much is being given away by the Government's acceptance of the Amendment to be moved by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), who has taken such a very active and creditable part in the discussions on this Bill. I ask the learned Attorney-General to give very serious consideration to the Amendment now under discussion. If this Bill is to become law no one less than the Attorney-General ought to have the authority to carry out legal proceedings against the person concerned, and it ought to be done deliberately and calmly.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I support the new Clause. I think the learned Solicitor-General will agree with me that in the first instance, in order to have a definite
opinion as to whether proceedings should be taken in a really important matter, there is no one more responsible and more fitted to give that opinion than the Attorney-General. We on this side of the House regard this Bill as something new which materially affects the liberty of the subject. We can conceive of no proceedings being taken, if a proceeding is to be taken at all, unless the highest precautions are first taken. I do not suppose that even the Solicitor-General or anyone connected with this Bill will deny that the right claimed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), is a minimum. I do not suppose anyone would hold that a matter of this importance should be left entirely in the hands of magistrates or the local police superintendent. Whether we agree with each other or not, the fact remains that a tremendous consensus of opinion believes that the Bill is neither necessary nor practicable. Even if that opinion is held by a minority, it must be obvious to everyone that precautions must be taken before an individual is charged under this Bill when it is passed. The only question that arises is, who is the correct authority to take the proceedings, to give his fiat for the purpose of proceedings being commenced?
My hon. Friend has stated that there are already Statutes under which the fiat of the Attorney-General has to be obtained. That means that previous Governments have considered it necessary that in some cases precaution should be taken. The Acts to which my hon. Friend has referred are certainly not more important, as far as public interests and the interests of the individual citizen are concerned than this Bill will be when it is passed. The effect of this Bill will be that the private individual will have opened against him the possibility of his home being searched and a charge being made against him, and a prima facie case having to be answered. He will be brought before the court to answer that charge, and whatever the result may be a stigma will remain upon that person once he has appeared in the court. It is no good denying the fact that once a person has been in court charged with an offence of this description the ultimate result of the case may mean a tremendous difference in his personal freedom, and
even if he is acquitted there is the stigma remaining, and you will have the general public under the impression that some kind of offence has been committed. It is not a trivial matter like a charge of riding a bicycle without a light or neglecting to observe the rules with regard to street beacons. It is something more serious, and a man is not going to be accepted by his fellow men in ordinary life afterwards as quite the same respectable person once he has had a charge lodged against him for sedition.

Mr. DORAN: Why should he?

Mr. JANNER: I think the learned Solicitor-General will agree that every precaution should be taken. Suppose that the Director of Public Prosecutions undertakes these cases. I understand he is an official who decides, according to his own skill and ability, in which he is pretty reliable, as to whether proceedings should be instituted. But he has not the responsibility of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is responsible to this House and the country and if he prosecutes an ordinary citizen without proper and legitimate grounds and if that citizen is then acquitted, the matter can be raised in the House and the Attorney-General can be asked why he, with his responsibility upon his shoulders, permitted such action to be taken. Much though we dislike this Bill, I hope that if it is to go through it will at least go through with those precautions which are essential to maintain the character of the individual who is charged until he has actually been found guilty. In these circumstances, I cannot conceive why the right of the Attorney-General to examine the prima facie evidence and to satisfy himself in the first instance before a prosecution is undertaken, should be withheld from any citizen who is likely to be charged with these offences. Accordingly, I support the new Clause and I do not see that any reason can be adduced against its inclusion in the Bill.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: Although I share with my hon. Friends the Members for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and South-East Leeds (Major Milner), the desire to sweep away what I venture to consider a pettifogging and restrictive piece of Socialistic legislation, I firmly believe that the proposed new Clause
would have precisely the opposite effect to that which they imagine. I do not see that the substitution of the Attorney-General for the Director of Public Prosecutions involves any great danger but it certainly cannot be held to contain any safeguard whatever. Unlike the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General is a politician. An hon. Member below me said just now that this Bill dealt with matters of opinion. So indeed it does, and if anybody has firm opinions in politics it is the Attorney-General. He is not only the representative of the House of Commons. He is also the representative of his own political party. May I briefly ask my hon. Friends to consider this hypothesis? Suppose—and more unlikely things have happened in politics—that for one brief moment, for a short interlude, inveterate opponents of the Government's White Paper policy were to snatch a majority in this House. They would then, in theory, be able to constitute a Government and it would be necessary for them, that being so, to appoint to the office of Attorney-General somebody who thought along their own lines. It might be a little difficult to find any such member of the Inns of Court, now that the representation of Swindon has recently been changed. But if someone holding those views and sharing that outlook were to occupy the office of Attorney-General and were to have vested in him this power which deals with matters of opinion, I am certain he would be prone to smell out disaffection under every conceivable stone. The consequence of accepting this new Clause would be that the last state of this extraordinarily unfortunate Bill, which most of us deplore, either privately or publicly, would be infinitely worse than the first.

9.0 p.m.

Major NATHAN: I understand from the learned Solicitor-General that he has agreed already to accept an Amendment by virtue of which no prosecution can be undertaken save with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecution. The question, therefore, which the House is now considering is whether the authority on whom responsibility should rest should be the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions of course has a great variety of duties in connection with prosecutions, duties which it
is difficult perhaps to define specifically, as they are of a very general nature. But where they are specifically defined they are defined in a very limited number of cases. For instance, prosecutions can only be undertaken by or at the instance of the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with bankruptcies. It is he who is the final authority as to prosecution or no prosecution in cases of incest and of murder and he also is the person to initiate proceedings in connection with election petitions. But those as far as I can ascertain are the only specific instances in which, under the law of this country, the Director of Public Prosecutions is, in terms, required either to institute porceedings or to give his consent to the institution of proceedings. Apart from those cases, as far as my researches have taken me, his powers are the general powers reposing in him. But those powers are only exercisable by him where the Attorney-General is not the right and indeed the only authority to institute proceedings.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) has already drawn attention to the classes of cases in which the consent or the initiative of the Attorney-General is required and he has pointed out that the Director of Public Prosecutions is specifically mentioned in connection with bankruptcies, election petitions and cases of incest and murder. How very different are the cases in connection with which the Attorney-General, a Member of His Majesty's Government and politically responsible to the House of Commons, is required to give his consent or to take the initiative. I draw attention in particular to the fact that under the Official Secrets Acts of 1911 and 1920 it is the initiative of the Attorney-General and not of the Director of Public Prosecutions that is required before B. prosecution can be undertaken.
I draw attention to those particular Acts because on reading the record of the debates in Committee—I was not myself a member of the Committee—I find that the learned Attorney-General or the learned Solicitor-General or it may be both, frequently drew a parallel between the Official Secrets Acts and this Bill. It was pointed out with a good deal of force that there was ill certain respects a close parallel between the two, especially where questions arose of the
right of search, the grant of search-warrants and the institution of proceedings. I ask the Solicitor-General to carry the parallel still further and as in the case of the Official Secrets Acts, so in the case of this Bill, to make the deciding authority as to prosecution or no prosecution the Attorney-General. He, after all, is answerable to this House and by virtue of the long tradition of his high office must exercise his functions not in a purely administrative capacity but in
a judicial or semi-judicial capacity. I think when there is any limitation or infringement of the common law right of the people, any limitation of their long-established liberties, they are entitled to know that no prosecution will be undertaken in relation to these matters save upon the well-considered and judicially considered decision of an official of the Government responsible to this House.
I have drawn attention to the limited class of case in which the Director of Public Prosecutions is specifically mentioned, and the wide classes of case, including the Official Secrets Act, in which the Attorney-General is mentioned. There is one further class of case, the class in which aliens are concerned. There is an Act of Parliament to which reference is not often made—I know not how often or how seldom proceedings have been taken under it—with regard to offences of aliens under the Territorial Waters (Jurisdiction) Act, and there, so careful is the House as to the position of aliens, that not merely is the consent of the Attorney-General necessary, but the consent of a Secretary of State also. I cannot believe that in a grave matter such as this the House of Commons or the Government would wish that those who may become the subject of proceedings under this Bill should he in a less favourable position as regards the institution of a prosecution than the House has already provided for in certain circumstances in the case of aliens suspected to be guilty of offences. I much hope that the Government will accede to a view which is strongly and widely held, the view that no prosecution shall be capable of being instituted save upon the authority and at the instance of the Law Officers of the Crown.

9.7 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I feel that the discussion of these alternative proposals has
strayed into rather legalistic regions, and so I should like to bring the House back to the common-sense considerations which underlie the question. I do not pretend to feel any very strong preference as between the new Clause which the House is now discussing and the Amendment which is down in my own name and which the Attorney-General has been good enough to signify his intention of accepting. When I put down my Amendment, it was rather on the principle that, as one could not read the Attorney-General's mind, it was as well to give as many alternatives as possible, in order that we might be more likely to secure something; and should the Attorney-General, convinced by the arguments that have been used this evening, transfer his preference to the Amendment now before us, I should feel a difficulty to know whether to be glad or sorry. I see some merits in both proposals, but there is one consideration which makes me on the whole inclined still to prefer my own, in spite of the arguments recently used. After all, the great fear that those of us who are fighting this Measure have put before the Committee and the country over and over again is the fear that this Measure, when It is on the Statute Book, shall be used, especially in times of political excitement, for party purposes. From that point of view, I do see merits in assigning the authority as to whether there shall be a prosecution to the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than to the Attorney-General, because the—

Major MILNER: The Director of Public Prosecutions has to act under the direction of the Attorney-General, and therefore the virtue that the hon. Lady sees in her own Amendment goes by the board. The Director must act on the instructions of the Attorney-General, and therefore if the Government in power desired the Director to take proceedings, the Attorney-General would instruct him to take them.

Miss RATHBONE: In that case I am puzzled as to what difference the Amendment would make. If the Director of Public Prosecutions must act under the direction of the Attorney-General, then surely the Attorney-General is the responsible person, and the argument in favour of the Amendment substituting the name of the Attorney-General, that
we should be able to get at him in Parliament, should also prevail if it is the Director of Public Prosecutions. Is it the fact that the Attorney-General is really the responsible person? I bow to the opinion of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, as he is a lawyer and I am not, but I was going to say that I imagined the difference to be that the Director of Public Prosecutions was a permanent official, appointed on nonparty grounds and retaining his office throughout changing Governments, whereas Attorney-Generals change with the balance of power, and if our object is, so far as possible, to safeguard this unfortunate Measure—I do not believe it can be completely safeguarded, but as far as possible to diminish the risks of its being used in a party spirit—it is slightly more possible to do that if the decision is in the hands of a permanent official rather than of a. political officer. I see the advantage that it is a good thing, if there be abuse, to be able to get in Parliament at the person who has caused the abuse. On the other hand, there may be rather less chance of abuse if the matter is in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions, because presumably he will be less tempted to make use of the Act for temporary party purposes. Therefore, I think there are advantages on both sides, but on the whole I see considerable advantages in the proposal which is in my name and which we understand the Government intend to accept. If, however, the Attorney-General changes his mind, I certainly shall make no complaint.

9.13 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should not have intervened but for the remarks of the last speaker, because it seems to me that this Amendment is perhaps one of the most important that is being moved to-day. The issue is not us to who the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General is, but whether we are going to rely on the bureaucracy or on somebody who is a Member of this House and directly responsible. If we can get the Attorney-General to be responsible for initiating prosecutions, he may be a good or a bad Attorney-General, but at least he represents this House and the people, and he is responsible to the House of Commons. If you put it in the hands of any permanent official, however excellent he may be—I do not care if he
is the highest official in the Home Office—you are putting this power of interfering with the liberty of the subject into the hands of a machine which, in the opinion of many of us, is already far too powerful. Law after law is passed in this House increasing the power of the machine, the bureaucracy. Against that, we have to support the liberties of the people of this country, so that really this Amendment is not whether the Attorney-General or the Public Prosecutor is to authorise a prosecution, but whether we are to look after and protect the interests of the people of this country or whether we are to hand them over, as we have so many other things, to the mercies of a bureaucracy against which there is no appeal.
Whether the Attorney-General in fact or in practice is consulted by the Public Prosecutor or authorises prosecutions or not is not the question. The real thing is that we want someone here who can answer, and as a matter of fact the Attorney-General who now holds office belongs to a thoroughly reactionary party and is perhaps one of the most reactionary members of that reactionary party. If my liberties were in question, I would far rather trust them to him than to any public officer. It is not merely that we can get at him, but that his constituents can get at him too. He is responsible, and to hand over this dangerous power to any official who is permanently in office, who probably despises us in any case, and is not in the least swayed by public opinion in this House or outside, is to surrender a British birthright. I do not like the Bill at all; I think it is all un-English, but we need not make it worse by putting this serious power into the hands of a public official.

9.16 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We are grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) and the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) for having put down the new Clause and Amendment which raise this point. The question is whether prosecutions under the Bill should require the consent of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. The reason behind the new Clause and Amendment, I think, clearly was that in a Bill and in an
offence of this character the ordinary right of private prosecutions, the right of private persons to initiate prosecutions which we have in this country, and which I do not think they have in all other countries, should not be left at large and that no prosecutions should be instituted without the consent of one or other of the two gentlemen concerned. I will just deal shortly with the observations made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I think that he a little misconceives the scope of what we are discussing. Neither of these proposals really deals with the question as to who is to initiate the proceedings, but whether proceedings shall or shall not be initiated without the consent of one or other of the parties mentioned.
I do not agree with his description of the function of the Attorney-General in cases where he has to give his consent. He is acting in such a matter in a judicial or a quasi-judicial capacity. He is not representing a particular party, nor is he representing this House in any ordinary sense of the term. He has to judge on such evidence as comes before him whether it is a proper case in which to allow proceedings to continue. That is a quasi-judicial capacity, and the whole object is to keep politics out of the question as to whether a prosecution should or should not be initiated. It has been urged a great deal that this is a semi-political type of offence, and a suggestion has been made that some Governments—not this Government; some hon. Gentlemen have been exceedingly courteous in saying that they have no fears of my right hon. and learned Friend or myself—that some alternative Government might introduce political prejudice into the administration of this question. That political prejudice might be introduced either in sanctioning a prosecution or in refusing to consent to prosecution in the proper way. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Campbell case."] I do not refer to any specific instance, but it is clear that political prejudice might enter into consent being given or to consent being withheld.
Let me with these preliminary remarks come to what is the real issue we are discussing—the issue between South East Leeds and West Leeds—whether the Attorney-General or the Director is the
most appropriate officer. The Director under the Statute carries on his duties under the superintendence of the Attorney-General. That is the actual wording in the Statute, and the association between them is very close. The Director is responsible under his superintendence for the main conduct of his office, and, of course, the Director carries out the instructions he receives. There is a difference, however. Hon. Members may regard the two offices as identical, and as identical as one of the heads of the great departments and the Secretary of State. I think, however, that that is putting the identity rather too high. As objection has been made that political prejudice may be introduced into the administration of this Bill, we have chosen between the holders of these two offices, not the one who sits day by day and side by side with the Government of the day, animated by whatever political aspirations inspire the Government of the day, but we have chosen the great officer of State whose sole business is to judge in these cases whether on the evidence he thinks it sufficiently clear that a breach of the law as laid down by this House has been committed, and to make up his mind on that question; and it is his duty to decide whether he shall consent or not. I agree that there are precedents of one kind or another. We felt, and still feel, that, having perhaps particular regard to some of the criticisms which we do not altogether accept or agree with as to what might happen under some alternative Government under this Bill, we made a wise choise in accepting the suggestion of the hon. Member for the English Universities rather than the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds. I hope with that explanation that he may see his way not to press the new Clause.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not think that, when we are discussing a Bill of this sort,. it is any use trying to conceal the fact that the offences under this Bill will be political offences. The whole essence of the offence under the Bill is the person who does it. The question of the person who has a particular document and his intent in having that document will be decided by what the Government of the day considers is a respectable person or a revolutionary person. If there were a raid of the Prime Minister's premises, they would
be found full of documents, but now he is Prime Minister nothing is done. If the Bill had been in force in 1917, he would have been "for it." His closest friends were put in gaol, and he wrote letters about them. The whole essence of the Bill is that it is designed to be a weapon against people who are politically undesirable to the dominant classes in the society of ours to-day. It is no use burking the issue. It is no use suggesting that the law as administered is equal as between all persons. It is not. Whenever there is a matter of political prejudice, the bias is always heavy against the parties of the Left.
Questions about juries have been discussed. Juries, especially special juries, are not impartial. There is not a lawyer in this House who would advise a member of the Labour party to bring an action for libel against a Conservative newspaper before a special jury of the City of London. He would not have an earthly chance. Now we come to the similar question whether it should be the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. There will inevitably be a bias against people of the Left, against Socialists, Communists, Fascists and others. I do not suggest they are dishonest. I think the Attorney-General is a perfectly honest person, but that he has an honest bias against people of the Left. It is much better to have the thing stated clearly, for this will be brought up against people with certain political views in respect of alleged offences which would not be offences at all if committed by persons of Conservative views. It is better to let every case be approved by the Attorney-General, who will have to answer in this House to other politicians and from time to time to the electors. It is time that we debunked this idea of the impartiality of the law.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. GARDNER: I ask the House to bear with me for a minute or two. I may take a long way round, but I shall reach the point. During the Recess I have gone into the matter of mutinies in connection with this Bill. I ran across an account of the mutiny at Spithead on 5th April, 1797, that preceded the mutiny (it the Nore. I looked for signs of political disaffection, but I did not find any evidence of a successful mutiny. The only one I could find of that description
was where the mutineers were granted everything they asked for on 8th May, 1797. Mr. Pitt, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Committee of Supply, moved a Money Resolution for advance to the Navy of £351,000 and additional provisional allowances of £185,000. This was to implement promises made to the mutineers. He asked for the silent judgment of the Committee and to all intents and purposes the mutineers triumphed. I do not want the Attorney-General's opinion on whether the mutineers failed or not.
I am one of those unfortunate people mentioned by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) just now. I happen to be a justice of the peace. I have considered this Bill from the standpoint of one called upon to administer the law. The facts of the Spit-head mutiny are most striking. The mutineers had a strong case which would have made a most interesting newspaper article. I am wondering what would happen in certain cases. The account of the mutiny is history, but such an article would fall under the ban of the law laid down in this Bill. The "Times" could print such an article with impunity for no one could question the intention of the "Times." It might be different, however, with other newspapers, such as the "Daily Herald" or "Reynolds," for such an article, if specimen copies were distributed, it could be held by some justices of the peace that the writer, editor and publisher was maliciously endeavouring to seduce members of His Majesty's Forces from their allegiance by publishing accounts of a successful mutiny. Let us consider the same case with the "Daily Worker." In this case, if there were a free distribution of copies in a naval port or garrison town, then with the law as proposed I should have to hold, or be false to my oath to administer the law without fear or failure, that the article and tone of the paper, place of distribution, special distribution—all these things brought the publication within the meaning of aiding or abetting as described. My untutored mind would land me in the position of making the atmosphere of the newspaper part of the crime. Therefore, in supporting this new Clause, I am doing so in the hope that, instead of untutored minds like mine having to deal with such things, the Attorney-General will first deal with it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to support this new Clause. I do so for several reasons. The Solicitor-General, in his reply, stated that they wanted to keep politics out of this matter altogether. It is for that very reason that we have to put down this new Clause. We want to be able to impeach the Attorney-General on the Floor of the House of Commons for anything that may take place as the result of this Bill, because we believe the Bill is one of the worst that has ever come before this House. The Bill has been introduced because of politics. I am astonished that everybody to-day from every side of the House has been paying tribute to the integrity and sincerity of both the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. They have gone out of their way to do it. I am not going to do anything of the kind. There is nobody in the House who knows better than those two learned gentlemen the reason for this Bill; it is political. It is because some old women, some people call them duchesses, Snowden called them duchesses, are afraid that there are Communists in this country. That is the reason for the Bill, and it is because of that we have put in this new Clause. It is to ensure that we may have the Attorney-General before us and question him, so that Britain will know what is going on, and so that we shall not be delegating any of our duties as representatives of the people and take away the power of the British House of Commons. They have done it. They have appointed the late Minister of Labour chairman of a committee to which this House has delegated the power it formerly had to impeach the Minister of Labour here on the Floor of the House of Commons.
It is because the Government are removing the power which the House has, that we have put forward this new Clause to try to safeguard British liberty, something of which we have always boasted. This Bill is tearing from us the last vestige of liberty that we have in this country. It would not have been introduced had not the police of Lord Trenchard raided a Communist office in London. What they did was illegal—and all the reactionary elements in Britain stood aghast at the fact that this was the freest country in the world, that there was more liberty here than in any
other country. The reactionaries at once set to work to create an atmosphere, and this Bill is the result of that atmosphere. Opposite are the two men who framed this Bill to take away the liberty of which we have always boasted. The Communists are a body of men with whom I do not agree and never did, but they represent a point of view which we can meet in argument, fair and above board. This Bill is designed, however, to do away with argument; it is brute force. The power of this country is being used to crush out a point of view held by certain individuals, who have as good a right to hold a point of view as has the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, or as you, Mr. Speaker, have a right to a point of view. But this powerful Government, the most powerful Government of all time in Britain, have got to use this great power in order to crush an insignificant organisation in Britain because they fear its point of view.
I contend that what this great, powerful Government and this great rich country ought to do is to remove the causes that breed extreme men, but they have done nothing of the kind. All they have Clone is to devise ways and means and use all their unquestioned ability—I do not question their ability, and never have done—to bring in repressive Measures to crush every point of view which differs from their own. Why I am so anxious that we should not let this Bill go from the flloor of the House of Commons is that I can remember getting the Prime Minister to come down with me to Glasgow in 1918—I still have in my locker the photograph showing him standing on the lorry with us—when our meeting was prohibited. He, the Prime Minister, the present Prime Minister, said that if we could not get what we desired constitutionally, "We will have to get what we want." Where is he to-day? I can remember more on the same lines. When we had a Communist sitting on these benches, Saklatvala, the same Prime Minister used his influence in our party to put up one of his satellites, a member of our party, to move that Saklatvala should not be allowed to sit among us. That is a spirit that carries one nowhere. But we were able to show what had happened in the past, and asked if the Labour party would have felt happier if, when Hardie came into the House, a lone man, the Tories and Liberals had refused to
let him sit there. Still, the Prime Minister got a satellite of his in our party to raise the point. He is carrying on the same thing now with the Tory Party. They are welcome to him.
I know what it is to be under the ban. I know what it is to be arrested. In 1926 we had the general strike, or the lockout, when we members of the working class were fighting for the miners, and when the Government of the day were trying to, and did, starve the miners' wives and weans and drive the miners into submission. I stood in this House then and said that if the Government of the day were to do the same thing to me and mine as they were doing to the miners, I would not only advocate the stopping of the pumps but I would blow the mines to Ballarat. The then Secretary of State challenged me to make that speech outside. I went outside and made the speech at Clowne, in Derbyshire, and he had me fined £25. And I have a sadder thing than that to relate in my experience of what can come from delegating, or relegating, the power of this House to individuals.
This Bill is just another form of the Defence of the Realm Act, which was put into operation during the War, and lashed me and my family in no uncertain fashion. Just as decent men as the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General dealt with me in the most cruel and brutal fashion known, simply because a war was on, simply because I held different opinions, simply because I did all one man could

do to stop the War. Because of that I was arrested, and while I lay a prisoner in Edinburgh Castle they sent a soldier and two Glasgow detectives to search my home. It was at midnight. They called my wife out of her bed. She was lying in childbed, not able to stand on her feet. They turned my house outside in. My boy, my second son, was wakened by a British soldier, a lieutenant in the British Army, standing over his bed with a flashlight, and it was years before he got over it. That is what you do in searching a man's house.

I am the type of man who will be impeached, and whose home will be searched, under the Bill. It is not the riff-gaff and the ragtag and bobtail of society with whom this Bill will deal, but men who
…dare to stand alone,
Dare to have a purpose firm
And dare to make it known.
It is because we still have men who cannot be bought, either by position or pelf, and because there still are, in Britain, men and women with outstanding character and belonging to the Socialist Movement—the Prime Minister knows that they are there—against whom this Measure is being brought forward. So far as I am concerned, I will do my best to see that it does not go on to the Statute Book.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 305.

Division No. 368.]
AYES
[9.48 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Harris, sir Percy
Paling, Wilfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Healy, Cahir
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Rea, Walter Russell


Buchanan, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
West, F. R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
White, Henry Graham


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Wilmot, John


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lunn, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McKeag, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut Colonel
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Elmley, Viscount
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McKie, John Hamilton


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Apsley, Lord
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Carul, S.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Everard, W. Lindsay
Magnay, Thomas


Assheton, Ralph
Fox, Sir Gifford
Maitland, Adam


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Col. Glyn K (Croydon, N.)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Gledhill, Gilbert
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Glossop, C. W. H
Meller, Sir Richard James


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Goff, Sir Park
Milne, Charles


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitcheson, G. G.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walte.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bernays, Robert
Greene, William P. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Blindell, James
Grimston, R. V.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Borodale, Viscount
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morgan, Robert H.


Bossom, A. C.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Boulton, W. W.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hacking. Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Munro, Patrick


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hales, Harold K.
Nall, Sir Joseph


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nunn, William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Harbord, Arthur
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormiston, Thomas


Browne, Captain A. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Buchan, John
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Buchan-Hepbu, n, P. G. T.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Patrick, Colin M.


Burghley, Lord
Hepworth, Joseph
Peake, Osbert


Burnett, John George
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Pearson, William G.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Penny, Sir George


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hopkinson, Austin
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hornby, Frank
Petherick, M.


Cassels, James Dale
Horobin, Ian M.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pike, Cecil F.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Christle, James Archibald
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pybus, Sir John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Radford, E. A.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Colman, N. C. D.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Conant, R. J. E.
Jamieson, Douglas
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cook, Thomas A.
Jensson, Major Thomas E
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.


Cooke, Douglas
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Copeland, Ida
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Remer, John R.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Robinson, John Roland


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cross, R. H.
Leckie, J. A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Levy, Thomas
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lewis, Oswald
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Liddell, Walter S.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Denville, Alfred
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dickie, John P.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Liewellin, Major John J.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Doran, Edward
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Scone, Lord


Drewe, Cedric
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.)
Selley, Harry R.


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Loftus, Pierce C.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Duggan, Hubert John
Mabane, William
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Duncan, James A. L. (Keneington, N.)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Slater, John




Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-in-F.)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Templeton, William P.
Weymouth, Viscount


Smithers, Sir Waldron
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Somervell, Sir Donald
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Thompson, Sir Luke
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Soper, Richard
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Sotneron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Train, John
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Spens, William Patrick
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wise, Alfred R.


Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Stevenson, James
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaka)


Stones, James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)



Stourton, Hon. John J.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Strauss, Edward A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Captain Austin Hudson and Major George Davies.


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Act not to apply to a Parliamentary candidate.)

No search warrant shall be granted or any prosecution instituted under this Act against any candidate for Parliamentary election or against his agent or against any person or persons under his instructions for anything said, done, written or published in pursuance of his candidature after the issue of writs for the summoning of a new Parliament or after motion made for the issue of the Speaker's warrant for the issue of a writ to fill a vacancy until such time as the return to such writ or writs has been duly trade.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Our intention in moving this Clause is that there should be at' least complete freedom to speak during Parliamentary elections. All Members here, who have taken part in Parliamentary elections, know that, while they always have due regard to the truth, they are sometimes apt to get rather heated. Probably at the next election strong things will be said about this Bill, but, whatever is said, at least Members ought not to be in danger of being challenged for statements of that kind.
Then there is the further fact, and I think the most important fact—it is no use trying to conceal it—that this Bill is capable of being used by members of one political party against another political party, and I want to say now what I was going to say before when it was ruled that I was going rather wide. I have never been quite sure as to who was responsible for this Bill. I am not quite sure that the Attorney-General is responsible for it. On the back of the Bill there are the names of the representatives of the Air Force, the War
Office and the Admiralty, but I sometimes wonder, in view of their complete absence from these discussions, whether Tory headquarters have not been as much responsible for the Bill as even the Forces whose representatives' names are on the back of it. I have also wondered whether the Government, knowing, it may be, of certain places which are used for the kind of documents to which the Attorney-General has referred here, would not be prepared to wait their time and make their raid during a general election, and precipitate another kind of "Red Letter."
It seems to me, that this Bill, in the hands of a Government, is capable of being used for things of which most citizens and most political candidates in this country have scarcely dreamt, and certainly it would be possible, if a Government or a party were so minded, to take note of every speech that candidates make or every leaflet that they use, and to bring such candidates and their agents within the purview of this law. We are asking that, at any rate during the time of an election, candidates and their agents and those who act for them should be able to speak and act freely, without any difficulty or fear of the danger of being brought within the compass of this Bill. I do not know whether it is possible to get the Attorney-General to accept the principle of this proposed new Clause, but I trust that the House at any rate will see that it is necessary, whatever they think about the Bill and its objects in general, first, that no political party should be able to use a Bill of this description against their opponents, and, secondly, that candidates and those who take part in elections should be able freely to speak their minds without being in fear of the law.

10.3 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman's speech in reference to this Clause was, if he will allow me to say so, most reasonable and moderate in length, but I am bound to say I am not sure that I fully understand what is in his mind. Let me look at the Clause, because I want the House to consider its language, although I will deal with what I understand to be the substance of the proposal quite apart from the particular form of the Clause. The proposal is that no proceedings of any sort shall be instituted against a candidate, or his agent, or any person acting under his instructions, for anything said or done or published in pursuance of his candidature, until after the election is over. The House will notice that this immunity till the election is finished is only in respect of that which is done by persons acting under the candidate's instructions in pursuance of his candidature. Who is to say whether a particular speech is in pursuance of his candidature or not? Suppose that an agent or a worker or a canvasser acting on behalf of a condidate goes up to the barrack gates and says to a number of soldiers: "You are not bound to obey, and, if you take my advice, you will not obey, your superior officers." Is that to be regarded as a speech made in pursuance of the candidature of the candidate or not? Who is to settle this question? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Lunacy Commission!"] That is perhaps more true than kind. I should not have thought of saying anything half so unkind about the hon. Gentleman, who is always so friendly even in his opposition.
But let me try to deal with the matter as one of substance. The hon. Gentleman says the object is to secure complete freedom for a candidate at a Parliamentary election. We on this side take a different position from that taken by hon. Members opposite about the Bill. It has been said more than once that the Bill is to interfere with political opinions. I have said over and over again, and I take leave to say again, that it has nothing to do with political opinions until a man says or does some thing to persuade a soldier that he need not obey his lawful orders. That is an offence, and I take the view that it ought to be an offence. There is the safeguard of liberty in every country that it shall have fidelity on the part of its soldiers.
I do not care whether you have a Communist, a Socialist or a Tory Government. It must know that the weapon that it is lawfully entitled to use shall not break in its hands when it uses it. If you want to alter the system under which an airman is going to bomb native troops or a soldier is possibly going to be used to protect the public in a great industrial dispute, do not be guilty of the mean offence of going to the soldier, who has sworn to obey his orders, but go to Parliament or to the Government of the day.
I am not going to admit for a moment that the right to express opinions freely at an election is going to include the right during the election to go to a soldier and persuade him that he may be false to the oath that he has solemnly undertaken. I do not believe that has anything to do with freedom at all. It is licence of the worst character. There is not an hon. Member opposite who need be afraid of anything that he has in his mind to say about war. Many of us on all sides of the House take part from time to time in meetings of the League of Nations' Union. There is not, I should think, a bench in this House which has not Members who have expressed themselves as to peace, and the wickedness of war, in terms as sincere, as searching, and I hope as eloquent as the speeches which hon. 1Iembers opposite make. Members may make those speeches at the next general or by-election with as much fervour and as much security as they have ever made them in the past. What they must not do—and they know it as well as I do—is, under the cover of expressing political opinions, to attempt to persuade soldiers to disobey orders which have been lawfully given to them. I understand that the hon. Gentleman, in spite of what I think is the inaccuracy of the language of his proposal, wants immunity for a political candidate whatever he says even to a member of His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. LAWSON: I want the same rights for a Parliamentary candidate as those who represent the party that preached revolution in the Curragh and were endorsed by the Tory party.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Who were so fierce in their denunciations of the people who attempted to seduce the soldier or sailor from his duty? It was a
constant complaint on political platforms that the Law Officers of that day did not do their duty and prevent them from seducing the soldiers from doing their duty. It does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth now to say they want to be as free to do that as the people were who did that act. That is a pure debating point. I put the question plainly to him in all good temper. I believe that in his heart he does not want the right to go to a soldier and seduce him from doing his duty. He does not stand for that. Some people do stand for that. If I were to accept this Clause, it would merely be giving a period of three or four weeks' licence to those people who do not care a rap for the liberties any more than they do for the constitutional government of this country. The hon. Gentleman has echoed what has been said more than once, a doubt as to who is responsible for this Bill—whether the Attorney-General or the Admiralty. I will tell him who is responsible for it. It is the Government, who have their supporters firmly behind them in standing for this elementary right of a constitutional Government that its servants shall not be interfered with in carrying out the duties which Parliament has entrusted to them.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. WILM0T: The case that the Attorney-General has so eloquently and successfully demolished is not a case which anyone on this side of the House has made. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is on the Paper."] If the hon. Member will refer to the Amendment Paper he will not find it there. The offence of which we speak is not the offence of seducing the soldier from his duty. No Parliamentary candidate whom we could defend would seek to commit that offence. The Attorney-General surely knows that, and, therefore, his eloquence was directed to something that does not exist. The offence is not the seduction of the soldier but the possession of literature which, if it were distributed—there is no need for it to have been distributed—in the opinion of someone might do so-and-so. The whole thing turns on the opinion of the authorities as to what would be the effect of the document if, in fact, it were distributed, and it seems to me that, in circumstances of political stress, when feelings are much on edge, the ordinary perfectly loyal, straight-
forward election literature of a Parliamentary candidate could easily be held by someone taking a biased view to be literature the mere possession of which was an offence under this Measure.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: There must be intent under this Bill to commit -or to act.

Mr. WILMOT: The hon. and gallant Member interrupts me to say that there must be intent. There must be intent in the opinion, again, of the person who constitutes this an offence. In normal times we should probably agree that no great harm to liberty would be done, but the whole process of this Bill is that it may be applied in abnormal times, and we all surely have seen with regret that the traditional impartiality of the courts will not always stand the strain of severe division of opinion, especially on matters sunk as peace and war, and religious questions.
I remember very well when I was a soldier in uniform during the War, going into a police court in the New Forest to shelter from the rain, and seeing there a dozen men before the bench, each charged with the offence of riding a bicycle without having a rear light burning. Everyone of those men was fined half-a-crown except one weedy fellow, who, it was stated, was a conscientious objector, working on Mr. Jones' farm. He was fined one guinea, and the others half-a-crown. That is an example. It sounds now, at this distance of time, to be a pretty good joke, but it was evidence of a state of mind on that bench which will be no joke when this Bill has been passed. It meant that these people were capable of using their judicial position to impose a special penalty for an opinion and incapable of interpreting election addresses which might have been issued by well-known people. The Prime Minister's election address; for instance, in the famous-Woolwich by-election would undoubtedly have been held by the type of persons who constituted that bench to be a document which, if distributed, would constitute an offence under this Bill. Any one who took part in that by-election in Woolwich just after the War when the present Prime Minister was a Labour candidate, will remember very well the sort of opinion which was passed by respectable people on the kind of literature he was issuing to his prospec-
tive constituents. Having regard to the fact that Woolwich is an Arsenal and a military town, and that in the ordinary exercise of the normal distribution of literature by a parliamentary candidate to his constituents, the candidate, in this case the Prime Minister, would have sent those documents to people serving in His Majesty's Forces because those people were his voters, and he undoubtedly had them in his possession for the very purpose of distributing them to members of His Majesty's Forces. If those documents were put before the sort of people who sentenced the New Forest conscientious objector to pay a guinea instead of half-a-crown, they and the possession of them, would undoubtedly be held to constitute an offence under this Bill.
I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that what we are discussing is not the virtue or the vice of the act of seduction of a soldier but the uses which may be made in times of trouble of the Clauses in the Bill. I submit that they can be used for purposes for which it is quite possible that the Attorney-General has no wish at present that they should be used. A careful reading of the Act will show—and what I am saying now is supported by some of the best jurists in the country—people who hold the very highest position as professors of law in our universities—that this Bill can be used by a repressive Government to stamp out opinion which it regards as unpopular. It is for that reason that we are asking that this Clause should be accepted.

10.21 p.m.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: It is very difficult to follow the hon. Member in the interpretation which he has put upon this Clause. It is not only a question of dealing with people who are endeavouring to circulate documents in depots and other military posts, but the Clause also covers people who are affected by Clause 1. It applies to any person who
maliciously and advisedly endeavours to seduce any member of His Majesty's forces from his duty or allegiance to His Majesty.
Such person
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
The proposed new Clause endeavours to exclude from the provisions of the Bill,
whether applied to Clause 1 or any other Clause, Parliamentary candidates. What is a Parliamentary candidate? It amounts to this, that at the time of a general election half a dozen people gathered at a street corner in Glasgow or any other big city may decide that their leader would be a likely person to represent them as a prospective candidate at the election, and under this Clause he would be excluded from any prosecution which the Government of the day might consider it advisable to put into operation. That is not all. Under the Clause not only is the individual candidate excluded, but any agent or person or persons whatsoever under his instructions. It is reasonable to suggest, and I think it is a fair argument to submit to the House, that a candidate of that type who has been adopted for the specific purpose of preaching sedition at the time of an election could enlist in his services and give instructions to numberless people acting on his instructions for the whole purpose of defeating the Act.
It may be said that this Clause would apply only to a properly nominated Parliamentary candidate, but the Clause does not say so. Let us assume for a moment that it did say so. It only means to say that the people who are anxious to bring about a revolutionary state of affairs in this country, provided that they have the finances at their disposal—they seem to have a lot of money, which comes from some place or other—have only to arrange for the adoption of a Parliamentary candidate at the time of a by-election or a general election at every depot throughout the country, in every centre where it would serve their purpose best, and under this Clause those people would be excluded from the provisions of the Act in regard to prosecutions. I do not know whether the hon. Member, with his experience of the War Office in the first Labour Government, and his friends who support him realise in exactly what way this Clause could be used by subversive elements in the country and outside it. I suggest that it is not right that a responsible party should come to this House and put on the Order Paper a Clause which would entice and give every encouragement to people to do their best to bring down the constitution of this country.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: It would appear to me that there is nothing more necessary for the maintenance of democratic government in this country than a provision that a Parliamentary candidate should be subject to no limitation of any unreasonable kind in presenting his case. As long as he puts before the people of the country reasons why they should vote in one way or another there should be no restriction whatsoever upon his conduct. A Parliamentary candidate is a person who is seeking to be elected to this House to change the laws when he has been elected. The very fact that he is a candidate in the first instance is evidence ordinarily that he is seeking to change society by changing the laws of the existing constitution. A man in that position ought to have the greatest possible freedom of utterance. If any limitation is imposed upon him a limitation is imposed on the, people as a whole. If he is not in a position to state freely everything he thinks should be said, the people of the country are debarred from receiving from him the issues upon which the election is being fought.
Any limitation which is imposed on a man seeking election is a limitation imposed on the voter, because voters do not vote upon men but upon issues. If the country is to be afforded an opportunity of deciding on the merits of different matters they should be stated quite freely in an atmosphere of the frankest discussion. Therefore, if some candidates work under any restrictions the whole system of democracy works against one party and in favour of the other. The party which is seeking to change the order of society is under grave limitations. It is fighting against the established order of things, against established values and institutions and, therefore, is considerably handicapped at the start. If these limitations are added to by a fear of the vague and ambiguous penalties imposed under this Bill, then the forces of progress are put under unreasonable restrictions.
Let me ask the Attorney-General a question. Suppose that I, holding extreme pacifist views and also holding the conviction that the promptings of a man's conscience are the supreme consideration for him, that no laws can override what he conceives to be his duty, am a Parliamentary candidate and have in my possession 20,000 copies of the speech of Bishop
Barnes, the one which appeared in the Press recently in which he exhorted members of His Majesty's Forces not to bomb helpless populations in Afghanistan, and that I distributed that leaflet to my constituents. I ask hon. Members to read Clause 2—not Clause 1; everybody has been reading Clause 1. Clause 2 says:
If any person, with intent to commit or to aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of an offence.
I say that any just and dispassionate interpretation of that Clause would bring me within the reach of the Bill, and that all the leaflets which I distribute to the people of my constituency, conveying the opinions of an eminent ecclesiastical authority, would be conceived to be a violation of the law. I hope that the Attorney - General will be good enough to reply. I am not committing an offence, but I am counselling the commitment of an offence; I am saying that men who have sworn an oath of allegiance ought not to allow that oath to be set against the promptings of their Christian conscience, and that they should have regard to the principles of Christianity first and their fealty to the Crown second. Occasions do arise, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit, because I have heard him speak with very strong feeling in the Debates in this House. He will agree that circumstances will arise in the lifetime of many men when they have to choose between conflicting allegiances. The history of this country and its Constitution has been written by men who have put their consciences before their allegiance to authority. If I had those leaflets in my possession, conveying to my constituents the declared and considered opinion of an ecclesiastical authority, would I be committing an offence under this Clause?

10.31 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can only speak by permission of the Chair and the House. The hon. Member is a little vague in the nature of his question. What he asks me to suppose is that he has in his possession 20,000 copies of the speech delivered by the Bishop of Birmingham. The Bishop of Birmingham, if I may say so, was somewhat studiously vague in his statement. I have a copy here. He said:
Knowing that my words as published in the English press may reach members of the Royal Air Force concerned, I say that
I cannot think that a Christian man could act under orders in this way.
The hon. Member supposes that he has had 20,000 copies of that sentence printed.

Mr. BEVAN: And its context.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The rest of the context was only a reference to me.

Mr. BEVAN: No.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then I have not here the whole of the passage. I do not want to evade the question, but that was the gist of the sentence.

Mr. BEVAN: If it assists the Attorney-General in his argument I will accept that statement.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then I am to assume that the hon. Member as a candidate has possession of copies of this speech, whatever were the other words that accompanied those which I have read. If the hon. Gentleman had 20,000 copies in his possession and there was any evidence that he was wanting to give those copies to members of his Majesty's Forces in circumstances which led them to believe that they need not obey orders, the hon. Gentleman would come under this Bill. Let me add this: The hon. Gentleman has used some eloquent words about conscience. He wants freedom of conscience for a Bishop of Birmingham or himself to say to a man "You need not drop a bomb when you are told to do so by some superior officer." Let us see where that leads? If freedom of conscience is to be given to a man to say that, is the same freedom of conscience to be given to a man who, in an industrial dispute, seeing the soldiers in the street under orders not to shoot until they are told, tells them to "Shoot and never mind the consequences?" If you are going to have freedom of conscience
allowing individuals to interfere—[Interruption.] Even the party opposite cannot claim a monopoly of conscience, and conscience leads people in very funny directions.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I do not think the learned Attorney-General has done his case any good by his parallel. He has mis-stated the position. In the first place, the mere possession of these docu-
merits would be an offence. [HoN. MEMBERS: "With intent!"] If I had these 20,000 leaflets in my possession, what would I have them for? The mere possession of 20,000 leaflets—

Mr. HOWARD: With intent.

Mr. BEVAN: I am very glad that the hon. Members who interrupt are not presiding over our courts. As a matter of fact, if it were proved in court that had in my possession 20,000 leaflets of the speech of the Bishop of Birmingham, the possession of those leaflets would itself be evidence of intent. I am prepared to bow to superior legal authority on the matter but I am told that the only way in which a judge could arrive at any conclusion on the question of intent would be by consideration of the circumstances of the case. You cannot get at intent except through the surrounding circumstances. A person would not have 20,000 such leaflets in his possession merely to gloat over them but with a view to distributing them.

Mr. HOWARD: Not necessarily. May I suggest that the hon. Member might have taken those leaflets from an ill-advised supporter of his who had the intention of distributing them?

Mr. BEVAN: Hon. Members opposite are being driven to the most fantastic suppositions in order to support their case. We have had it from the Attorney-General that if the Bishop of Birmingham wrote to the Press his letter, which could be read by any soldier, sailor or airman in Great Britain, after this Bill becomes law, he would be guilty of an offence.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member will pardon me but I never said anything faintly approaching that.

Mr. BEVAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that if I distributed these leaflets among my constituents and if they could get into the possession of soldiers, sailors or airmen—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then, precisely what, is the position?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is very difficult indeed for the hon. Member and myself to conduct a Debate about supposititious circumstances in regard to which we are not sure that we both mean the same thing. I do not complain of the hon. Member but I have not said that the mere possession of leaflets or
the writing of a letter of this kind to the papers would be an offence. It would only be an offence if there were what lawyers call overt acts, showing an intention on the part of the person circulating the leaflets to affect the loyalty or the allegiance of the soldiers to whom they were given. I do not profess to be able to give an exact answer on rather vague statements of fact and while I do not complain of the hon. Member, he must not put into my mouth words which I have not used.

Mr. BEVAN: It is extremely difficult to follow the Attorney-General's point. If I distribute leaflets containing the speech of the Bishop of Birmingham among any soldiers, if I state to the soldiers, "You are Christian people and it is in my judgment an un-Christian act for you to bomb defenceless villages in India. You may be called upon to do so, and if you do so you are not Christians"—would that be an attempt to procure disobedience to their allegiance?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, under the present law as well as under this Bill.

Mr. BEVAN: Now we have it quite clearly from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is at present illegal in Great Britain to call upon soldiers to be Christians. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We are indeed very much indebted to a pillar of Christianity in this House for the statement that you may propagate the principles of Christianity anywhere except among His Majesty's Forces. I would like to put a further proposition to the House, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will help me again. I understand that 'a soldier is subject to the laws of the country, that if a soldier be asked by his superior officer to fire upon a civilian crowd, it is not enough for the soldier to plead that he acted upon the instructions of his officer if his act is indeed illegal. I remember a Debate in this House some years ago in which that point was made. that we have still in Great Britain kept the soldier subject to the jurisdiction of the civilian courts, 'and that if a soldier be called upon by his superior officer to violate the law, it is not sufficient for him to plead in extenuation that he obeyed the instructions of his superior officer.
As a Parliamentary candidate, am I not perfectly entitled to argue that it is inconceivable that any set of circumstances could arise in Great Britain in which members of His Majesty's forces could be called upon to fire upon a crowd of men engaged in an industrial dispute, and that indeed, if they were so called upon, they would be violating the law and that they should be prepared in such circumstances to disobey the instructions of their superior officers? If I distributed a leaflet in which I pointed out to the soldiers that in these circumstances they should refuse to obey the instructions of their superior officers, should I come under this Bill? Of course I should. In fact, it is impossible for me, as a candidate for Parliament, to treat a member of His Majesty's forces as 'a citizen with full citizen rights, and I want to know why the Government have not the courage to take the next logical step and deprive the members of His Majesty's forces of any right to vote at all, because we are being forbidden to place before them many of the real, live issues which may arise in politics in the immediate future in this country.
Questions of participation in civil conflicts and in conflicts with other countries are bound to arise more and more in British politics, and it seems to me that all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to procure can already be procured under the existing law. There is no need to add a single word to what is already on the Statute Book to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman every protection he requires to prevent individuals of malicious intent committing acts of subversive propaganda among members of His Majesty's forces, and if that be so, I want to know why this 'additional disability should be placed upon Parliamentary candidates, because of all people they should be the freest to state their views to the people as a whole. So far from the right hon, and learned Gentleman acting as the custodian of British liberties and the Constitution, this Government is gradually frittering away the liberties. of the British people and introducing into the British Constitution principles utterly alien to the traditions and spirit of the British people.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Capt. A.
Evans), arguing against the new Clause, pointed out—and I see the point—that there was some danger that it might be taken advantage of, if it was adopted, by a Communist candidate who had become a candidate for the one purpose of carrying out agitation for causing the troops to mutiny, and he suggested that he would probably be subsidised by funds coming from abroad. I should like to ask whether the Attorney-General really thinks there is substance in that argument. I ask it for a particular reason, because I hold in my hand an extract from one of those letters which the Attorney-General has been good enough to write recently to correspondents defending the Bill from different angles, and in it he appears to indicate that some danger of this kind does exist. I think it will be helpful if he were to enlarge upon it. He used these words:
You ask me when the troops the case. to-day, of their splendid an organisation erate purpose of of affairs. It is abroad.
That may be so and it may be the foundation of the Bill and the reason behind it. If it be so, we ought to be told more about it and what particular country is permitting an organisation of this kind to foment trouble among our troops. I think our troops are far too sensible to pay any attention whatever to propaganda of that kind coming from abroad, but I wish the Attorney-General would tell us which this hostile foreign government is. Surely it cannot be our great friends the Soviet Government of Russia, because our Government has quite recently rightly supported its election to the League, of Nations as being a government which is carrying out all its international obligations; therefore, it cannot be guilty of

subsidising and fomenting mutiny in this country at the same time. The two things are utterly inconsistent. It may be some other country which the Attorney-General has in mind. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Third International."] The Third International is under the control of the Russian Government; that has always been the charge in the past. Before we can decide whether the fears of my hon. and gallant Friend are justified or not it would be helpful if the Attorney-General would enlarge upon the very serious charge that he has publicly made against some foreign government.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman is committing the same fault, about which I complained before, of putting into my mouth words which I did not use. I chose my words carefully about something which I knew, and I said "financed from abroad." I did not say "by a foreign Government."

Mr. MANDER: All countries that are abroad are foreign countries. Therefore, some foreign country is permitting an organisation which is carrying on agitation to be financed from there. Has the Attorney-General or the Government made any representation to this foreign Government asking that it will take steps to prevent this agitation being carried on?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are now getting away from the new Clause altogether.

Mr. MANDER: I will not pursue it any further, but will ask the Attorney-General to enlarge upon what he said, because clearly it will be of assistance to the Committee in coming to a conclusion with regard to the advisability of this new Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 302.

Division No. 369.]
AYES
[10.50 p.m


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Dobbie, William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards, Charles
Healy, Cahir


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Hicks, Ernest George


Attlee, Clement Richard
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Holdsworth, Herbert


Banfield, John William
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Janner, Barnett


Batey, Joseph
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Jenkins, Sir William


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Buchanan, George
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Kirkwood, David


Cape, Thomas
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Cove, William G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lawson, John James


Daggar, George
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Leonard, William


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Logan, David Gilbert


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Groves, Thomas E.
Lunn, William


Davies, Stephen Owen
Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, Valentine L.


McGovern, John
Paling, Wilfred
West, F. R.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Parkinson, John Allen
White, Henry Graham


Mainwaring, William Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Mellalieu, Edward Lancelot
Rea, Walter Russell
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Wilmot, John


Maxton, James.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banf)


Milner, Major James
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Nathan, Major H. L.
Thorne, William James



Owen, Major Goronwy
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—




Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds. W.)
Denville, Alfred
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Dickie, John P.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh' d.)
Doran, Edward
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Drewe, Cedric
Leckie, J. A.


Apollo, Liut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Apsley, Lord
Duckworth, George A. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Duggan, Hubert John
Levy, Thomas


Assheton, Ralph
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lewis, Oswald


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Eastwood, John Francis
Liddall, Walter S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Elmley, Viscount
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Llewellin, Major John J.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Bateman, A. L.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Loftus, Pierce C.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm th. C.)
Fox, Sir Gifford
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Fuller, Captain A. G.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O (Ayr)


Bernays, Robert
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Blindell, James
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Borodale, Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton


Bossom, A. C.
Gledhill, Gilbert
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Boulton, W. W.
Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradestan)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Magnay, Thomas




Maitland, Adam


Bower, Commander Robert Talton
Goff, Sir Park
Makins, Briadler-General Ernest


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mannigham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Greene, William P. C.
Meller, Sir Richard James


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Milne, Charles


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Burghley, Lord
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. 
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Burnett, John George
Hales, Harold K.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morgan, Robert H.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, William Shepherd


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Harbord, Arthur
Moss, Captain H. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Munro, Patrick


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nall, Sir Joseph


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Christle, James Archibald
Hepworth, Joseph
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Nunn, William


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wailer
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybrldge)
Ormiston, Thomas


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hopkinson, Austin
Orr Ewing, I. I.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hornby, Frank
Patrick, Colin M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Horobin, Ian M.
Peake, Osbert


Cooke, Douglas
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pearson, William G.


Cooper, A. Duff
Howard, Tom Forrest
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Copeland, Ida
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Petherick, M.


Craddock, Sir Heginald Henry
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Critehley, Brig.-General A. C.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pike, Cecil F.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cross, R. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Iveagh, Countess of
Radford, E. A.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsey, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)




Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Train, John


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Remer, John R.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Somerveil, Sir Donald
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rickards, George William
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Robinson, John Roland
Soper, Richard
Ward. Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ross, Ronald D.
Spens, William Patrick
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stevenson, James
Weymouth, Viscount


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Stones, James
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Strauss, Edward A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Savery, Samuel Servington
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wise, Alfred R.


Scone, Lord
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Selley, Harry R.
Templeton, William P.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)



Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Thompson, Sir Luke
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.


Shute, Colonel J. J.
Thorp, Linton Theodore



Slater, John
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

10.59 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: Before we go on I would like to ask the Attorney-General how far he really wants us to go to-night. I would point out that up to now we have made very good progress.

11.0 p.m.

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL: respectfully agree that we have made good progress, and I am very much obliged to hon. and right hon. Members opposite for helping us in that progress; but would it be reasonable if we went to the end of Sub-section (1) of Clause 2, which is the second Amendment at the top of page 1903? The first Amendment there is to leave out Clause 2. I dare say that will not be moved. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said on the Second Reading that he took no objection to the operation of Clause 1. There are one or two Amendments still to be moved on it, and I suggest that they will not take very much time and that we might have a reasonably long Debate on the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1) and then adjourn.

Mr. LANSBURY: One of the most important of the Amendments to Clause 1 is in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot)—in page 1, line 8, to leave out "or" and to insert "and." If the next Amendment taken is that to leave out Clause 2, and it is disposed of, one wonders whether we might adjourn then, and start tomorrow with the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1).

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot help thinking that to-morrow there will be less time, and that therefore there will be a greater necessity to sit up late. If we take the course that I have suggested, I hope that the House will not have to sit very late and that there will be a full opportunity of saying everything on the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman has just alluded.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: There is an extremely important Amendment to be moved from below the Gangway. If we go after half-past twelve, I shall feel inclined to go on all night and finish the Bill. A good many of my hon. Friends will not be able to get home, and may as well stay. We ought to have more time for the discussion, but we know that we are very much in the hands of the supporters of the Government who are so overwhelming in numbers; therefore, I would like to make a reasonable arrangement about it. If we can be sure that we shall finish at about 12 o'clock—the experience of to-night gives ground for that hope, because hon. Members have not made long speeches; I have been bursting to speak but have not done so—and if we can agree to a time, that will be all right, but otherwise, let us go on. We are quite willing to go on. We do not want to go until about two o'clock and then to find ourselves loafing around this House. Hon. Members can adjourn when they like. It is in their hands.

11.3 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): The Government will be perfectly prepared to stop, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) on the understanding that the remaining Amendments are obtained to-morrow at a reasonable hour. I cannot specify a time, but a reasonable hour would be about half-past twelve. If that be agreed in all quarters of the House, the Government will be prepared to stop at the end of the Amendments to Clause 1.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: We cannot make any bargain about to-morrow night. The Debate on the Third Reading of this Bill is a very important one. The right hon. Gentleman is always so very reasonable that I am sorry that he cannot see his way to give us extra time during the day for the Third Reading. The business of the Session would not suffer if he would allow us to finish to-night at twelve o'clock and to take the rest of the time to-morrow in getting through the Report stage; and if he would then give us another day in order to give the Bill the Third Reading Debate, which the Attorney-General and other right hon. Gentlemen must know in their hearts it deserves. I earnestly ask him to consider that suggestion.

11.5 p.m.

Captain MARGESSON: It was exactly for that reason that the Government suggested that we should dispose of the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1) of Clause 2. Really, the Opposition want a reasonable time for the discussion on the Third Reading. If that Amendment is disposed of, the remaining Amendments on Report could be disposed of by, say, 7.30 to-morrow, and we should then have from 7.30 till, say, 12.30, which is a reasonable hour, to debate the Third Reading—or say 12.15, to enable hon. Members to catch their trains. That would still leave about five hours for the Third Reading Debate.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: As far as we are concerned, we cannot bind ourselves as to time in regard to the discussion of the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1)
of Clause 2. We view it as a matter of important principle, and we cannot be subject, on a question of principle like this, to the Government's time. We have great sympathy with and understanding of the position of hon. Members of the Opposition who cannot get home. It is a very awkward position for them. It is not a fair use of Government time. The theory of government is that Members here are equal, and, when you use your power, it is not merely inequality of numbers, but inequality of position. As far as we are concerned, the Amendment as to the use of troops in an industrial dispute involves a cardinal principle. I was going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, in view of your statement, whether you would accept from me a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate? If so, I will move it now.

Mr. SPEAKER: The discussion that has just taken place has really been quite irregular; there is no Motion before the House. I am quite prepared to allow the hon. Member to move, not "That the Debate be now adjourned," but "That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, be now adjourned."
I do so because I think that the statement of the Leader of the Opposition is reasonable, and that we ought to have much more time on this Measure. This is a Motion which is not unusual at this time of night. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to do it without a Motion, thinking that the Government might be reasonable. The amount of time remains the same and the responsibility of dividing it is thrown on the Opposition. The time is too limited. It is not for us to say what portion of the Measure shall not be discussed. It is our job to insist that time shall be given for every matter of importance to be discussed. This is a matter of first-class importance arousing grave public opinion. Why not devote one more day to it and one less to dog racing? This raises in the average man's mind some idea of public liberty and political freedom. It is much better to devote a day to it than to other matters that are relatively unimportant.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Motion.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: This is not the kind of Bill that would go through without tempers being frayed to some extent. We could not possibly make 'any bargain, but the Amendment will certainly take a long time. A large number of Members want to speak on it. Is it not possible, without asking us to make any bargain, to agree to finish with the next two Amendments? A Bill that took 16 days in Committee surely deserves more than two days on Report. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should agree to end with the Amendment at the bottom of the page.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I cannot understand the easy way in which the House is taking the most preposterous proposal which has been put forward from the Government Bench. In my time in this House, I have never confronted a situation such as that with which we are confronted to-night, even with Governments who had not behind them the overwhelming support enjoyed by the present Government. Fancy coming here on the first day after the Recess that they themselves fixed and asking the House, their own supporters and others, to sit into the early hours. I have never known a House of Commons where, if the Leader of the Opposition, coming back after an extended period of illness, had made a simple request on personal grounds—because in previous House of Commons the human aspect of things has always had serious consideration—would not have been sufficient without any further reason at all. I cannot understand whether it is the Attorney-General or the Patronage Secretary who is responsible for this, but it seems to be a tremendous confession of weakness on the part of a very powerful Government, at least as far as numerical strength is concerned, to announce to the country that it cannot put through its business inside the reasonable normal working Parliamentary hours.
This House to-day has done an ordinary Parliamentary day's work. There has been no obstruction, and there has been no obstructive speeches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I was not in at the close of each new Clause, but only on one occasion do I remember the Closure being moved. The House of Commons
has done a normal day's work. There has been no display of passion or ill-temper. The Government have made substantial progress, and now we come to this hour when further progress cannot be made unless we are prepared to work during an unnatural period which subjects a very large proportion of the Members to considerable inconvenience. The spokesman of the Government comes forward and says, "Unless you give up your right to oppose, unless you give up the right to perform your essential Parliamentary duties, and unless you intimate to the country that your opposition to this Measure is not so very strong after all, we will compel you to sit right through the night." It is a disgraceful and a disgusting attitude to take up, and it is in keeping with the spirit I have complained about on this Measure. It is substituting the big stick idea for the reasonable agreement idea in politics. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says, we know our limitations because of our numerical weakness, but I for one will not be a party to facilitating the progress of this Measure to the Statute Book in any way whatever. The Government can get this Measure. The ordinary powers which reside in Parliamentary procedure are sufficient to get them this Measure in a reasonable time, although the wisest plan for them would be to drop the proceedings on it altogether. The Attorney-General has repeatedly said, and he has stated it tonight, that the Government have all the powers necessary to do the things that he
is asking for in this Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will point out the particular sentence in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. It is no use being acrimonious now. In reply to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) he said: "Just as we can do under the existing law." The Government may proceed with the Bill, but they ought not to add to that indecency the indecency of asking the House to proceed with it at unreasonable hours.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I support the proposal of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and hope that the Government will very seriously consider that more time should be given to the remaining stages. We have spent prac-
tically the whole of a normal Parliamentary day discussing four points, and the right hon. and learned Member has very fairly admitted that, there has been no attempt to waste time. Although a large number of hon. Members have spoken I do not think that anyone has spoken at considerable length. We have dealt with those four points, but the points with which we have still to deal in the main part of the Bill are of very much greater substance than any of those with which we have dealt. As we have necessarily spent much time on the new Clauses, is it not reasonable to suggest that still more time will be needed if we fare adequately to debate the very important and substantial points which still remain on the Order Paper. It will be impossible to discuss these points as fully and adequately as hon. Members will wish to do and have adequate time left for the Third Reading. Rightly or wrongly this Bill has been a subject of considerable controversy in the last few months. It arouses the greatest public interest. It happened in Committee and to some extent on the Report stage that the discussion of the technical difficulties of the Bill and the very intricate details have been left to some of us who are back bench Members. In view of the great public interest taken in the Bill there should be a full Debate on the Third Reading in which the more prominent Members should have full opportunity of expressing their views, the Leader of the official Opposition, the acting leader of the party that I represent—

Mr. COCKS: And the Prime Minister, too.

Mr. FOOT: Yes, and I hope the Prime Minister, too. There should be a Debate on the Third Reading which will do justice to this subject and the interest which it arouses in the country.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Patronage Secretary is unusually obstinate to-night on this subject. No one on the Front Bench opposite has risen to defend the proposal that we should carry on all through to-night on a Bill highly controversial and on which there are a number of extremely important Amendments still to be considered. The Government can, of course, defeat the Motion before the House and force us to sit to-night and
debate the Bill. We shall do that, and they can adjourn when they please. So far as we are concerned, we will sit right through into the morning, and late into the morning, and as long as they sit. But that is not the way that a majority of Englishmen treat a minority. I think this is the worst thing that has happened in this Parliament—to say that you shall have only these two days for a Bill of this sort, however much you may conform to Parliamentary procedure, and however moderate you may be in the length of your speeches. Any one of us could have spoken for an hour on any of the subjects which have been discussed.

Mr. HOWARD: They did so for 16 days in Committee upstairs.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not think it is dignified or a very fair method of carrying on the business of this House. Whatever may have been done in Committee has nothing to do with what is being done in the House to-night, and we have a perfect right to discuss the Bill. If we had started in the way in which the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) used to commence when he wanted to defeat us in the last Parliament, that is to make long speeches and to obstruct, I could understand the attitude of the Patronage Secretary. He may say that we must finish by 20th November. It is no law of the Medes and Persians. If we went one day longer the world would not come to an end, nor would Parliament come to an end. We should start the new session a day later. There is only a tiny minority below the gangway, a small minority on these benches and another small minority on the Liberal benches; altogether we are less than one-sixth of this assembly. You talk about fair play? There is no fair play about this at all. It is absolutely unprecedented in the history of Parliament. I make one more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. We ought to have a full Parliamentary day for the Third Reading. There has been only one days' discussion on the Bill on the floor of the House. I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to adjourn the Debate at a-quarter-past-twelve and tomorrow get on with whatever there is to do and give a further day for the discussion of the Bill. I do riot want this question to be decided on any question of
our ability to stay late. We do not like late sittings; no one does. They do not do any good or help our debates. I have always set my face against them, but if we cannot get an adequate discussion on this Bill in any other way we must go on all night. I appeal to the Patronage Secretary and the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter.

11.29 p.m.

Captain MARGESSON: The Government of course realise that the Opposition can continue the Debate just as long as they wish, and the Opposition realises also that the Government can carry on the Debate if they choose. There is nothing in that. But the right hon. Gentleman has made a very strong appeal to the Government which I do not think the Government would wish to ignore entirely. We have before been successful in carrying on the business of the House in a satisfactory way. The Government did give way to the Opposition at the end of July, and did not begin the Report stage when they could have taken it by sitting late. It was pointed out that we had had a. very long and arduous Session, that Bills had been brought forward at a late period of the Session and it was put to us that it was hardly fair to ask the Opposition to take the Report and Third Reading of the Bill at the end of the summer when everyone was tired. The Government listened to those representations and said that they would not finish the business before the Summer Adjournment. It was understood that two days—to-day and to-morrow—would be devoted to the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill. As a matter of fact, no opposition was raised by Members of the Opposition. No one said to me at that time: "That is much too short a time to give, and we shall protest when the Bill comes before the House."

Mr. MAXTON: That is not a fair point.

Captain MARGESSON: I make that point in passing. The Government did give way to the Opposition at the end of the summer Session. We shall be content to get the end of Clause I to-night.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I tried first of all to get an agreement as to how far we should go to-night, and then I realised that the proposal in regard to industrial
disputes was one which a number of our people would want to discuss, as I am sure would hon. Members below the Gangway. So I said, "Do not let us discuss how far we will go, but let us fix a time, 12 or 12.15, to adjourn"; and then I asked whether we could have more time for the Bill. That is what we are pressing for now—that we shall not be limited to to-morrow to finish the
That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, considering that we have only got so far and there has been no obstruction. The Government ought really not to expect us to go on like this.

11.34 p.m.

Captain MARGESSON: I understand the proposition now. Although I have not got a full Parliamentary day at my disposal, if it was agreed that we get the Third Reading by four o'clock on Friday, the Government would move the Adjournment at 12.15 to-night. But that must be agreed in all quarters of the House.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. MAXT0N: In the use which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has made of the fact that no active dissent was made before the Summer Adjournment from the arrangement—I think a most unfair use—he is imposing upon any Member who wishes to dissent from anything the duty of getting up on every conceivable occasion and making his dissent vocal. What he says in effect is that because we did not vocally dissent at the end of July we are now to be debarred from asking for more time. In view of that statement I am now voicing my dissent to the arrangement. My opposition to the Bill has been clear from the beginning, on the Second Reading and through the Committee stage, and I am not facilitating its progress in any way now.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: Speaking with the permission of the House, I only wish to say that we are prepared to accept Friday for the continuation of the proceedings on the Bill. I was not here before the Summer Adjournment, and do not know what happened then, but I think it a pity that that matter was introduced; but, when we are in search of arguments, we can generally find them, and the right hon. Gentleman has given one. If we are going to have Friday, I
think we might go on to-night until 12 o'clock, and I should hope that there need be no Division on the Motion to adjourn the discussion now.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I wish to say that we made no agreement, tacit or otherwise, at the end of the sittings in the summer, that only two days were to be given to the Bill. It was at the end of the summer sittings, and we were all pretty tired, and the Government always announce the business for the first week after the Recess but there was no question of any arrangement, and certainly we on this side had no intention whatever of assenting to any arrangement that the discussions should be limited to two days.

11.38 p.m.

Captain MARGESSON: I never said that there was agreement, and I never mentioned the word "agreement." I said that it was announced that two days would be given to the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill, and it was not pointed out at that time that two days would be insufficient, and no complaint was made at that time.

Mr. REA: While I agree with the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that no agreement was definitely made, I feel that we have been fairly met on this occasion, and I think I am speaking for my hon. Friends here when I say that we are prepared to agree with the' suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Question, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "seduce," to insert:
by a pamphlet or paper specially prepared for that purpose.
This Amendment would make the Clause read as follows:
If any person maliciously and advisedly endeavours to seduce, by a pamphlet or paper specially prepared for the purpose, any member of His Majesty's forces from his duty…he shall he guilty of an offence.
I move the insertion of these words, safeguarding the right of any person to circulate any ordinary paper, periodical, or propaganda sheet that may be neces-
sary, but at the same time, from the Government's point of view, safeguarding the right of preventing incitement of a deliberate character to the troops to disobey orders or to mutiny against orders. We believe that it is essential that some safeguards and assurances should be given that this Bill is not going to be used for the general purpose of preventing propaganda of any kind or the dissemination of Socialist propaganda to any of His Majesty's forces. I recognise, from the point of view of the Government, as a Government responsible for the defence of the property interests of the ruling class, that any appeal to the armed forces of the Crown not to carry out orders or to mutiny against orders would be of such a subversive character that it might overthrow the rule of property in this country, and should not be tolerated by them. Therefore, I am asking for the assurance that they will only attempt to prevent an appeal of that kind, because, in my own estimation, something more is sought by the Government of this country than merely to prevent appeals of that character. I think there is an attempt to use this Measure for distinctly class purposes, to prevent political parties in opposition to them from reaching the armed forces with their ordinary appeals and propaganda.
I can remember that during the period of the war, when Mr. Bernard Shaw was asked how he would end the war, he declared—and it was published in the public Press—that the war could be ended if the soldiers on both sides were to rise from the trenches, turn their backs on one another, shoot their officers, go home, take possession of their countries, and carry on their work. I am not saying that—Bernard Shaw said that—but I think that Bernard Shaw is a very wise man and worthy of consideration. Bernard Shaw would undoubtedly come within the scope of this Bill if he made a statement of that kind to-day, and we believe that the Government are attempting to prevent appeals of that character. While moving this Amendment, I stand for the right to appeal to soldiers, sailors, and airmen and to ask them in certain circumstances not to carry out the orders of the ruling class m this country or of their officers, because when Governments get together, form pacts and agreements, and hind the common men and women of any country
to fight in certain circumstances in defence of the interests of the propertied class, I do not believe in soldiers being allowed to go on to the battlefield without having the truth told to them before they proceed there.
Realising that the Government are proceeding with the Bill and that they have the authority in the land, we only ask that proper safeguards should be made to ensure that no political party in this country will be prevented under the Bill from making an appeal to or carrying on ordinary propaganda among the soldiers. We consider that the soldier has the right to have the same avenues of information as any other citizen, and that if the information, the propaganda, is bad for the soldier, the Government may logically argue that it is bad for every other citizen. We ask that this safeguard should be given and that the Bill should apply only to cases where a person has drawn up in a very definite way an appeal to soldiers to mutiny or to refuse to carry out orders. This Amendment is bound to test the sincerity of the Attorney-General when he says that only wants to get at people who attempt to make such an appeal to the soldiers not to carry out their orders and to seduce them from their loyalty to the Crown. I ask the Attorney-General to accept the Amendment even from his own point of view, and to show that he only aims at taking power in the circumstances which I have described.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
One of the difficulties with which we are faced, a difficulty which will become more apparent as the Bill proceeds, is that we are put in an awkward position in supporting or moving Amendments. It does not follow, however, that in doing that we are supporting the Bill; we are only trying to lessen the full force of it. I support the Amendment for another reason apart from the broad reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). What is an attempt to seduce a soldier? If you eliminate speech and do not eliminate talk, you immediately put in danger of arrest almost every relative of a soldier. When the last war started a number of people in this country thought that it
was wrong and that it ought not to be fought. Among those people was the present Prime Minister. I understand that the Prime Minister said that the war should not have been fought. If he spoke to a soldier and said in ordinary conversation, "I think this war is wrong," then under this Bill he would immediately be open to the charge of seducing that soldier from loyalty to the Crown. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It all depends on what you mean. We say that a person should have a right to the personal approach, that a man is entitled to say to his son or relatives, "You are a mug to go into the army; you are being used wrongly."

Mr. HOWARD: He can buy out.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would only refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who knows that the £35 required for buying out would buy Bow and Bromley. Besides if a war has just started or if you are a valuable soldier, they will not allow you to buy out.

Mr. HOWARD: If the hon. Member had organised a strike and then some of the trade unionists refused to carry out the orders of the executive, would he regard them as honourable men?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would say that they were dishonest. But the difference is that you are taking power here.

Mr. HOWARD: You have the power to starve.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Sometimes when I am talking to hon. Members I wish that we had. We think that there is a difference between a person conducting an ordinary conversation and the organised distribution of pamphlets. The personal appeal to the soldier should remain, and for that purpose I second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The
House, I am sure, has not misunderstood the hon. Member who moved the Amendment or the hon. Member who has just spoken. We realise that they dislike the Bill, and that they misunderstand the Bill. So far as this Amendment is concerned, it really is impossible, because everybody knows that the spoken word is often more potent than the written word. I should regard any of the three hon. Gentlemen as much more powerful
incentives to mutiny than printed pamphlets. I cannot accept the Amendment, and I hardly think the hon. Member can have expected that I should.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: As the Attorney-General knows, I sat through the Committee proceedings and I learned there not to expect anything at all. I got nothing, and I did not expect anything. The Attorney-General is anxious to press this Measure through, however onerously it bears on the citizens of this country, and however big a break it makes with the traditions of the past. Our purpose in proposing this Amendment has been outlined by my two hon. Friends, but I would add this further argument. We are anxious to exclude newspapers and other journals from being interfered with in the ordinary processes of their routine work of commenting on public affairs in one way or another—in the day to day work of producing a daily newspaper or the week to week work on a weekly periodical. We feel that that work should be carried on without a person feeling he must withhold reasonable comment on public affairs because of the possible danger of a prosecution under this Measure. The Attorney-General will say that a person who is carrying on a publication legitimately is adequately safeguarded by the insertion of the terms "maliciously and advisedly," but he will probably recognise that those are subjective things. Whether I do a thing maliciously and advisedly is a point about which only I—the person doing it—can be really quite sure. If the editor of the "Daily Herald" writes a leading article reflecting seriously on myself and my colleagues, as has happened on one or two occasions, I should be perfectly certain in my own mind that he was malicious; but he would be quite certain, in his mind, that he was performing a great public duty.
Some Ministers are more sensitive than others about these things, but any criticism put forward by a paper that is normally antagonistic to a Government is regarded as being actuated by malicious motives. There have been newspapers in this country with a great record for courage in commenting on public affairs at home and abroad. At various periods the "Manchester Guardian," in whose general political theories I am not a
believer, has passed the very strongest strictures upon the actions of Governments which it believed to be reactionary, and it has condemned in the strongest possible terms warlike preparations and adventures on the part of Governments in power. An editor, in a tense situation in which war is breaking out or may conceivably do so, and in the exercise of his public duty, may quite easily utter a call to the people of this country to refrain from joining in any such foolish and mad escapades. Under this Clause, without the Amendment which we are proposing, that editor and other people responsible for the publication of the newspaper, could be hauled into court and subjected to the terms of imprisonment laid down in the Measure or to its heavy financial penalties.
The Bill opens up a new stage in our political journeyings. It destroys that essential product of democracy, a free Press, which is carried on on the assumption that it can comment freely and openly upon all public affairs, even though the criticisms are in direct antagonism to the policy of the existing Government and is critical of the policy that the Government are following. The Amendment would completely exclude the possibility of such a destruction taking place, by excluding from the operation of the Measure all regular, normally-produced journals and publications. It would also exclude the possibility that has been raised so many times of people being prosecuted for circulating quotations from the Scriptures—or at least I hope it would. The Attorney-General brought forward the point that the Amendment would leave the person who makes an appeal oratorically rather than by leaflet free to carry on his nefarious operations. I put it to him that such a man is covered by the existing law on sedition. The orator can be easily got. The justifications of the Attorney-General for bringing forward the Measure have not up to now been directed to the oratorical appeal but to documents and the circulation of documents. It is because of documents, and the circulation of documents. You do not have search warrants to look for oratory; you only require search warrants if you are looking for something more tangible and material than an oration; and the Attorney-General knows that he did not produce his Measure for the sake of getting at
speeches. He knows that our concern is not with speeches. He knows—it has been said in this House in answer to questions—that I, or my hon. Friends, or any other Member of this House, whatever his political views may be, can approach the troops and make appeals to them oratorically.
This Measure, if we are to accept the statement of the Attorney-General in good faith, was introduced specifically to get at and to put a stop to the deliberate, malicious circulation of printed material of one kind and another directed towards destroying the whole morale of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. That was the reason given on the Second Reading, and that is the reason that has been adduced subsequently, the indication being that wholesale attempts were being made to penetrate the barracks and battleships and aerodromes with pernicious literature of a seditious kind, and that the disciplinary powers of the officers and the whole powers of the Army (Annual) Act were insufficient to prevent this penetration of the armed Forces with seditious ideas of one kind and another through the circulation of printed documents.
We give in our Amendment the right to prosecute. What the Attorney-General asked for at the beginning was the right to prosecute with reference to the distribution of literature definitely, deliberately and maliciously prepared. We say, "Good enough." We do not like the Bill at all; we think it is obnoxious in its general tendency, and more obnoxious still in its ultimate effect; but we say, "Limit it to what you said you needed it for," and we are proposing our Amendment to cope with the particular situation for which the Attorney-General said the Measure was required. We say, "All right; put that in, and limit the operation of the Measure thereby to the specific thing that you said you required it for." The Attorney-General says, "Oh, no; we cannot accept that, because we want it for a whole lot of other things as well." That is the Attorney-General's answer to my hon. Friends' suggestion.
At the beginning he introduced the Measure in that simple, disarming way of his, as a minor Measure, apologising for troubling the House with it; it was just
to put a stop to the circulation of pamphlets—I think he had samples of two that he held up—it was really not to interfere with hon. Members of the Opposition, or hon. Members below the Gangway, or hon. Members who sit behind me, but only just to get at those mischievous, malicious people who are printing these obnoxious papers and sending them out by devious and subterranean ways, through their paid hirelings, I think, and subsidised from abroad. That always makes the flesh creep. It is just to get at that type of thing; it is not to stop legitimate political discussion. It is not to stop legitimate pacifist propaganda. It is not to stop even the propagation of revolutionary ideas. It is certainly not intended to interfere with the dissemination of religious views. It is really directed to the circulation of these leaflets and pamphlets which has been going on. We say, all right. We bring forward
an Amendment that makes the Measure that and nothing more. But the Attorney-General says that will not do. He wants more than that. He says he must have this Clause in the widest possible terms which can bring within the purview of the Measure every newspaper editor, every preacher in the pulpit, every orator on the platform, every person in the family circle, every person who has ideas that happen to be obnoxious to the particular Government that happens to be in power at the particular moment.
I ask the Attorney-General to limit it. He says, "No. I want it for wider purposes than that. We must have Clause 1 unchanged and unmodified, to deal with any type of propaganda that tends to make the soldiers support an Opposition point of view rather than a Governmental point of view. "That, I contend, is far too big a claim for a House of Commons that believes in the House of Commons. I am not quite sure whether this House of Commons believes in the House of Commons or not. I am very doubtful as to whether this Parliament believes in the British Constitution or not. I question very much whether the majority in this House believes in the British Constitution to any further point than it happens to subserve their own ends. if the British Constitution is to be maintained as we have known it, it is going to be maintained by a very careful abrogation of all the things that have
gone to make it in the past. One of these is free speech, another is a free Press, and another is the sanctity of the home. All these things are attacked in this Measure.
Our Amendment does not remove all these evils, but it limits their operation. It limits the right of the Government to prosecute political opponents. It introduces something tangible into the Bill. The court can approve, or an accused can disprove. The police can say: "This man did produce these things, and he did it with the deliberate purpose of so-and-so." That is something that a prosecution can prove, or the accused person has an opportunity of disproving. Without such an Amendment, you are facing up your community with a chance of being dragged into a court about something which a prosecution can assert, and an accused person can deny but cannot possibly disprove because the whole thing may be completely intangible and indefinite.
The Attorney-General rejects our Amendment and says, "No, I refuse to have the Measure limited to the specific objectives. I must have it in the widest

and most general terms." He simply denies the good faith of his own speeches on the Second Reading and subsequently, and frustrates his attempts on repeated occasions to show that the objectives of the Bill are of a very limited nature directed only to a very limited section of the community; when he rejects this Amendment, he gives the lie to that statement of his opinion. He wants it in the widest possible form to affect the biggest section of the community and to interfere with liberties that have long been established and practised in this land. He does not know any more than I do the consequences of such a change in attitude between the State and its citizens. He does not know what the consequences will be, but I fear the worst. I am going to do all in my power to limit the evil operations of the Measure, and, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I shall be compelled to vote for the insertion of the proposed Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 219.

Division No. 370.]
AYES
[12.19 a.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Dobbie, William
Lunn, William



Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. McGovern and Mr. Duncan Graham.


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, Mal. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)


Apsley, Lord
Browne, Captain A. C.
Drewe, Cedric


Aske, Sir Robert William
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Burnett, John George
Duckworth, George A. V.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanat)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Duggan, Hubert John


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dunglass, Lord


Bateman, A. L.
Carver, Major William H.
Eastwood, John Francis


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Elllston, Captain George Sampson


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Bernays, Robert
Colfox, Major William Philip
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Blindell, James
Colman, N. C. D.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Bossom, A. C.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Boulton, W. W.
Conant, R. J. E.
Fox, Sir Gifford


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Cooper, A. Duff
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Copeland, Ida
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Glossop, C. W. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cross, R. H.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Gower, Sir Robert


Greene, William P. C.
Magnay, Thomas
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Malialleu, Edward Lancelot
Savery, Samuel Servington


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Scone, Lord


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hales, Harold K.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Harbord, Arthur
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hartland, George A.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morgan, Robert H.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hepworth, Joseph
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morrison, William Shephard
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Munro, Patrick
Spens, William Patrick


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hornby, Frank
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'moriand)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nunn, William
Stevenson, James


Howard, Tom Forrest
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Stones, James


Hewitt, Dr. Alfred S.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Storey, Samuel


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Patrick, Colin M.
Strauss, Edward A.


James, Wing-Corn. A, W. H.
Peake, Osbert
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Jamieson, Douglas
Pearson, William G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Peat, Charles U.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Penny, Sir George
Satellite, Harold


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Perkins, Waiter R. D.
Templeton, William P.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pike, Cecil F.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Leckie, J. A.
Radford, E. A.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Train, John


Leighton, Major B E. P.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)


Liewellin, Major John J.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Loftus, Pierce C.
Rickards, George William
Weymouth, Viscount


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Robinson, John Roland
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Mabane, William
Ropner, Colonel L.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Ross, Ronald D.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wise, Alfred R.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Womersley, Sir Walter


McKle, John Hamilton
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)



Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Sir Victor Warrender and Captain Austin Hudson.

Ordered, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee,) to be further considered To-morrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—[Mr. Duff Cooper.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Twelve o'Clock.